Abstract
Over the past two decades, mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) therapy has made substantial strides, transitioning from experimental clinical applications to commercial products. MSC therapies hold considerable promise for treating refractory and critical conditions such as acute graft-versus-host disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Despite recent successes in clinical and commercial applications, MSC therapy still faces challenges when used as a commercial product. Current detection methods have limitations, leaving the dynamic biodistribution, persistence in injured tissues, and ultimate fate of MSCs in patients unclear. Clarifying the relationship between the pharmacokinetic characteristics of MSCs and their therapeutic effects is crucial for patient stratification and the formulation of precise therapeutic regimens. Moreover, the development of advanced imaging and tracking technologies is essential to address these clinical challenges. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the kinetic properties, key regulatory molecules, different fates, and detection methods relevant to MSCs and discusses concerns in evaluating MSC druggability from the perspective of integrating pharmacokinetics and efficacy. A better understanding of these challenges could improve MSC clinical efficacy and speed up the introduction of MSC therapy products to the market.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC), which can be harvested and expanded from various adult and perinatal tissues, such as adipose tissue, bone marrow (BM), dental pulp, and umbilical cord (UC),1 exhibits diverse pharmacological effects, including immunomodulation, angiogenesis, and regenerative properties, rendering them promising for therapeutic applications.2 MSC therapy, which exerts the therapeutic potential of living cell preparations, has experienced explosive growth in both clinical deployment and expansion within the pharmaceutical marketplace for decades.3,4 Several MSC therapies approved by regulatory agencies and introduced to the commercial market have attracted increasing public attention. These include the successful approval of Prochymal (Remestemcel-L) in 2012 for treating graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) in Canada and Alofisel in 2018 for the treatment of Crohn’s disease in Europe (Table 1). The significant clinical benefits of MSC therapies are inspiring for further exploration and development.
Many previous studies disconnected basic biomedical research and the potential druggability of MSCs. A limited understanding of the dynamic biodistribution and fate of MSCs within the body threatens the development of MSC therapies. The evaluation of the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy is limited by its unfavorable pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties.5 Pharmacokinetics, which describes how the body interacts with a drug, involves the processes of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion, detailing the drug’s movement into, through, and out of the body over time.6 Unlike conventional drugs, MSCs can naturally migrate, localize, and even proliferate in specific tissues or compartments.7 In this review, we can consider the biodistribution of MSCs within the body as “distribution” and their fate as “metabolism and excretion”. Furthermore, MSCs are typically distinct from other cell therapies because their therapeutic efficacy depends not only on cell-to-cell contact but also on what is often referred to as a “hit-and-run” (or “touch and go”) mechanism—that is, through their rapid migration to damaged tissues and subsequent clearance following the release of paracrine effectors from their secretome, including soluble cytokines, growth factors, hormones, and miRNAs8,9 or the transfer of mitochondria to target cells through tunneling nanotubes,10,11 potentially leading to long-lasting effects.12 Thus, the lack of control over the localization, migration, and fate of MSCs is a translational challenge for MSC therapies.13
Numerous studies have shown that secretome-derived bioproducts containing bioactive molecules (such as proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids) and MSC-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) retain the biological activity of parent MSCs and demonstrate similar therapeutic effects.14 The characteristics of secretome-derived bioproducts and MSC-derived exosomes have been comprehensively reviewed elsewhere.15,16,17 In this review, we first outline the key molecules involved in the motility of MSCs. We then provide a brief introduction to the various methods for tracking MSCs in vivo, highlighting their advantages and limitations. The core of the article focuses on the biodistribution and fate of MSCs in vivo, assessing the relationship between the kinetic characteristics and druggability of MSCs. Finally, we discuss the prospects of future opportunities for the clinical and commercial use of MSCs.
The landscape in clinical MSC therapies
The success of clinical trials depends on understanding the mechanisms of drugs, but the clinical application of MSCs has frequently surpassed the understanding of their underlying mechanisms. A search using the keyword “mesenchymal stem/stromal cell” on ClinicalTrials.gov revealed more than 1600 related clinical trials, with more than 1500 clinical trials employing MSCs as a therapeutic intervention. With over 500 clinical trials of MSCs expected to be conducted by 2023, there is a wealth of information that can be leveraged to enhance our understanding of the factors influencing their successful implementation in human subjects (Table 2). These clinical trials are mostly in phase I, phase II, or combined phase I/II trials. Only a small percentage of trials are in phase III (comparing newer treatment approaches with standard or most well-known treatments) or phase II/III. Overall, MSCs appear to be well tolerated, with the majority of trials reporting no adverse reactions in the midterm. Only a few trials indicated mild and transient adverse reactions during the injection period. While MSCs exhibit a favorable safety profile, they often struggle to demonstrate significant efficacy in humans.18 Notably, no MSC therapies have received approval from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Representative registered clinical trials of MSC therapies
Many completed clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of MSC infusion in treating a variety of diseases, such as GvHD, multiple sclerosis (MS), Crohn’s disease (CD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), myocardial infarction (MI), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), among others (Table 2). Kabat et al. classified the indications for clinical trials into 14 groups, with those that could not be classified or had too few cases classified as “Other“.19 Among these clinical trials, MSC therapies for “neurological” diseases (17%) and “joint” diseases (15%) are the most common in registered indications. Cardiovascular disease (8.8%) and GvHD (8.3%) are closely related to this disease, with a higher percentage of phase III clinical trials. Only 84% explicitly specify the route of administration in MSC clinical trials.
Clinical comparison of MSC therapy and cell-free therapy
Compared to MSC therapy, cell-free therapy utilizing the MSC secretome involves the delivery of multiple bioactive molecules rather than intact cells.20 Assessing the safety and efficacy of MSC-conditioned medium will be considerably less complicated.21 Furthermore, the production of conditioned medium is more economical, as it can be scaled up for mass production utilizing existing MSC populations under current good manufacturing practice conditions. Nonetheless, cell-free therapy products share similarities with conventional drugs in that they may necessitate prolonged administration and could result in the development of drug resistance and adverse reactions.22 However, cell therapy offers the distinct advantage of potentially conferring enduring effects with a single treatment that can last for several months, reducing the need for frequent medication and enhancing the resilience of the treatment regimen.23 Additionally, to enhance the efficacy of MSC therapy and their homing ability, the singular or combined application of bioengineering techniques shows promising potential to significantly overcome the current clinical challenges.
Impact of different administration routes
The pharmacokinetics and biological properties of infused MSCs may be influenced by the route of administration.13,24 The administration routes in MSC clinical trials mainly include intravenous, intracardiac, intra-articular, intramuscular, intraosseous, intrathecal, intra-arterial, and implantation. Among the eight most frequently employed routes, intravenous infusion accounts for 43%.19 This preference for intravenous infusion is attributed to its ease of administration, low invasiveness, and high repeatability, making it the most frequently utilized method in treatment.25
Local administration is commonly employed because it allows direct delivery to the disease site. Forty-nine percent of registered MSC clinical trials utilized local delivery by 2018.26 Many MSC therapies are locally administered for various diseases, including lumbar pain, anal fistula, and chronic heart failure, in late-stage clinical trials.27 Local administration of MSCs is a more controllable approach, making it easier to access disease sites and often yielding better therapeutic responses.28 However, in certain cases, less than 5% of the administered cells have been observed to remain at the injection site just hours after transplantation.29 Moreover, local administration of MSCs also results in secondary distribution but is limited to locally vascularized areas such as the heart.30 The poor persistence of MSCs after local administration is due to several factors, such as cell death from the inhospitable microenvironment at the disease site and ineffective integration into the tissue.31 Compared to systemic administration, direct injection of MSCs into damaged tissue sites lacks systemic homing processes, but the persistence of MSCs in target tissues remains similar to that of systemic administration.
Systemic administration of MSCs is more minimally invasive and can avoid tissue calcification issues compared with local injection.32 Among the approved MSC products, treatments for GvHD and spinal cord injury are administered systemically. Although many studies in animals and humans have shown that intravenously infused MSCs tend to stick to the lungs,33 systemic administration of MSC therapy has been used in most clinical trials by 2023. Due to nonspecific uptake by blood vessels in nontarget tissues, higher doses are needed for MSCs to achieve effective treatment levels in target organs and tissues. The administration of 105–107 MSCs per kilogram is required based on patient weight,34,35 leading to widespread biodistribution in tissues and organs such as the lung, liver, and gastrointestinal tract.36 An increasing number of MSC clinical trials are using systemic administration, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of the pharmacokinetics of MSCs in the body. The detailed process of systemic administration of MSCs in vivo can be found in the next section.
Molecules of governing MSC motile potency during homing
After systemic administration, MSCs enter the blood circulation and cross the vascular endothelium at lesion sites through four steps: (1) tethering and rolling, (2) activation, (3) adhesion, and (4) transmigration (Fig. 1). This process involves various proteins that regulate MSC motility and interactions with endothelial cells (ECs). The ligands expressed on the surface of MSCs mediate their rolling action on the vascular wall upon binding to selectins. The G protein-coupled chemokine receptors on MSCs receive activation signals, leading to integrin-dependent adhesion to the endothelium. Finally, MSCs secrete proteases to break down the EC barrier, completing the homing process.7,37,38
Selectin ligands
The homing process is initiated through tethering events mediated by selectin ligands on MSCs and selectins on ECs (Table 3), with MSCs rolling after attaching to ECs.39 Hematopoietic cell E-selectin/L-selectin ligand (HCELL), a functional form of CD44 containing an sLex-like epitope, binds to E-selectin/L-selectin and functions as a marker of MSC motility.40,41 P-selectin also plays a role in mediating the rolling of MSCs through interacting with P-selectin glycoprotein ligand (PSGL-1),42 and blocking P-selectin decreases the binding of MSCs to ECs.39 Suila et al. reported that Galectin-1, rather than PSGL-1, tends to serve as a marker of MSC motility, as MSCs preferentially interact with P-selectin on ECs through Galectin-1, which is independent of the sLex epitope.43 The complex interplay of various selectin ligands is crucial for the efficient adhesion of MSCs to ECs.
Integrins
Integrins are transmembrane receptors that act as interfaces between extracellular and intracellular compartments and facilitate cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) adhesion.44 MSCs express a broad spectrum of integrins, including β1, β2, β3, β5, α1, α2, α3, α4, α5, α6, α7, α8, α9, αX, αV, and αD45 (Table 3). The integrin VLA-4 (α4β1), which is composed of CD49d (α4) and CD29 (β1), is highly expressed on human MSCs46 and plays a crucial role in the adhesion and rolling of MSCs. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) is an immobilized protein expressed on ECs that can bind to CD29, resulting in fast-rolling interactions under appropriate shear stress.47 Blocking CD29 or VCAM-1 abolishes MSC rolling, indicating that these rolling interactions depend on adhesion. This subsequently diminishes MSC migration to the injured liver and ischemic myocardium.40 Compared to that of CD29, the amount of CD49d on MSCs is insufficient, which may limit the homing ability of MSCs.48 Overexpression of CD49d enhances transendothelial migration in vitro and increases homing to the BM in vivo,49 demonstrating that VLA-4 is a suitable marker for MSC motility. Notably, MSCs also express intercellular cell adhesion molecule (ICAM-1, the ligand for αLβ2) naturally, but the significance of ICAM-1 in MSC homing still needs to be clarified. Integrin, a significant molecule involved in MSC motility, can generate actin-based forces to pull the cell body forward through more stable interactions between MSCs and ECs.
Chemokine receptor family
Chemokines and their receptors are now recognized as important mediators of MSC homing. Human chemokines are a superfamily of 48 ligands that bind to 19 different G protein-coupled chemokine receptors, regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, chemotaxis, and other physiological processes.50 They can be categorized into several groups depending on their functions.51,52 Inflammatory chemokines are upregulated during inflammation, promoting leukocyte recruitment and migration toward injury or infection sites.53 Homeostatic chemokines regulate adaptive immune responses and contribute to stem cell systemic migration.51 MSC activation is triggered by G protein-coupled chemokine receptors that respond to inflammatory signals, with chemokines binding to chemokine receptors on MSCs, leading to integrin recruitment and increased adhesiveness.54 In addition, the increased integrin affinity is attributed to rapid lateral mobility triggered by chemokines.55 MSCs express a broad panel of chemokine receptors, including CCR1-7, CCR9-10, CXCR1-6, and CX3CR1,56,57,58,59,60 but the expression of most these receptors is low and decreases after in vitro expansion, which limits studies on MSC homing and therapeutic efficacy.61 The chemokine-chemokine receptor network also plays significant roles in the tropism of MSCs from the bloodstream toward different organs or tissues in response to inflammation or injury (Table 3).
CCR1
CCR1 on MSCs is a key marker of motile potency, with a broad spectrum of chemokines acting as natural ligands. CCL3, which is produced by lymphocytes, monocytes, and macrophages in response to proinflammatory agents/cytokines, can accelerate MSC migration by interacting with CCR1 on MSCs.62 Stimulating CCR1-overexpressing MSCs with CCL5 increased the ability of MSCs to home to injured sites and restored cardiac function.63 CCL7, which is significantly expressed in the urethras of rats during stimulated birth injury, is a ligand for CCR1, and pretreatment combined with CCR1-MSC overexpression increases MSC engraftment to the mid-urethra.64 The lesioned hippocampus expresses increased CCL2, which recruits human olfactory ectomesenchymal stem cells (OE-MSCs) in vitro.65 CCL2 may bind to and activate CCR1 and CCR10 in OE-MSCs through an unknown migration pathway.
CCR2
Previous studies have shown that CCL2 (the ligand of CCR2) is widely present in certain inflammatory diseases and monocyte recruitment in injured tissue mainly depends on CCR2.66 Therefore, CCR2 on MSCs may also play an important role in migration. CCL2 induces MSC migration by activating CCR2 in vitro, and the CCL2-CCR2 axis promotes the homing of MSCs to various organs or tissues, including the heart, liver, brain, skin, and tumor.67,68,69,70,71 Huang et al. showed that CCR2 overexpression on MSCs enhanced their homing to the ischemic hemisphere and improved therapeutic outcomes.69 Moreover, CCR2 also plays a crucial role in regulating the motility of MSCs and promoting their recruitment to liver injury sites.72 CCL7, another ligand for CCR2, could induce MSCs to migrate toward the injured myocardium, resulting in beneficial remodeling in the infarct zone.71
CCR3 and CCR4
MSCs typically do not express CCR3, but following infection with Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV), they exhibit increased CCR3 expression and enhanced migration ability in vitro. Knockdown of CCR3 or blockade of its ligand CCL5 can partially suppress MSC migration, suggesting that the CCL5-CCR3 axis may promote MSC homing.73 Treatment with the cationic molecule polyethylenimine (PEI) dose-dependently increased CCR4 expression on MSCs, and the brain homing efficiency of MSCs significantly increased after intravenous administration of PEI in a rat model of brain injury.74
CCR6 and CCR7
Overexpressing CCR6 enhances MSC migration to skin wound sites.75 BM-MSCs expressing CCR6 can transmigrate across ECs in response to CCL20.76 Transfected MSCs with enhanced CCR7 expression showed improved migration to secondary lymphoid organs in response to SLC/CCL21, leading to prolonged survival in GvHD mice.77 Additionally, injection of CCL21 into the periphery of wounded skin significantly increased MSC recruitment to wound sites and accelerated wound closure in skin wound models.78
CCR9 and CCR10
CCL25 acts as a chemoattractant for various immune cells and is a ligand for CCR9.79 CCL25 has been found to mediate the migration of MSCs expressing different levels of CCR9 in vitro.80 In addition, CCL27 (the ligand of CCR10), a skin-specific chemokine, is predominantly expressed by keratinocytes in the epidermis of skin (injured/uninjured/exudates), and its upregulation recruits MSCs to migrate toward wounded skin.81 In vivo studies have shown that systemically administered MSCs overexpressing CCR10 migrate to the skin in response to CCL27.82
CXCR1 and CXCR2
CXCL8 (also known as interleukin 8, IL-8) is an inflammatory chemokine that can interact with CXCR1 and CXCR2.83 Ringe et al. found that MSCs migrate to zones with high concentrations of CXCL8 in a dose-dependent manner through in vitro chemotaxis assays.83 This process was observed in gliomas, in which CXCL8 was identified as an inducer of human umbilical cord blood-derived MSC migration toward glioma cells both in vitro and in vivo.84,85
CXCR2, a molecule with various ligands, is crucial for leukocyte migration toward inflamed BM sites.86 Genetic modification can upregulate CXCR2 expression on MSCs, enhancing their mobilization and accelerating healing.87,88 CXCL7 recruits human BM-MSCs in vitro and may influence their migration through the IL-8 receptor signaling pathway. The activation of chemokines that stimulate CXCR1 and CXCR2 suggests a synergistic mechanism for CXCL7-driven MSC migration.89
CXCR4
CXCL12 (SDF-1)-CXCR4 has already been the most widely studied MSC chemotactic axis.90 CXCL12 is secreted from various tissues, including the tumor, intestine, skin, ovary, bone marrow, liver, lung, kidney, and heart, and has been confirmed to recruit intravenously injected MSCs expressing CXCR4.70,91,92 Recent studies have investigated various methods for enhancing the migration and therapeutic efficacy of MSCs by increasing CXCR4 expression, such as hypoxia, chemical compounds, or cytokines, during MSC expansion in vitro.93 Notably, hypoxic pretreatment has been found to increase CXCR4 expression, promote migration, and reduce the apoptosis of MSCs in vitro.94 In addition to its role in migration and survival, the CXCL12-CXCR4 axis is also critical for MSC cytokine secretion.95
Others
MSCs overexpressing CCR5 exhibit enhanced migration following transplantation into the degenerating retina.96 In mice with allergic contact dermatitis, CXCL10 and CXCL13 mRNA levels were upregulated in inflamed ears. The number of MSCs overexpressing CXCR3 or CXCR5 increased in these ears, indicating that the CXCL10-CXCR3 and CXCL13-CXCR5 axes enhance MSC migration.97 Transwell assays revealed that CXCR6 is involved in the transmigration of MSCs across the EC layer in response to CXCL9.76 Exposure of MSCs to hypoxia increased CX3CR1 expression and migration in vitro.98 Intravenous injections of CX3CR1-overexpressing MSCs led to the generation of long-lasting MSCs in the inflamed colon of mice, even more so than in the liver and lung.99
Matrix metalloproteinase family
Traversing the protein fibers of the ECM, which is present in all tissue types, is crucial for cells to reach target sites in circulation. Basement membranes separate the epithelium or endothelium from the stroma.100 MSCs break down basement membranes by secreting matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are involved in various physiological and pathological processes because of their capacity to degrade ECM components.101,102 MMPs can also function as motility markers of MSCs, influencing their homing efficiency (Table 3). Gelatinases, MMP-2, and MMP-9 are major contributors to the breakdown of basement membranes.103 However, MSCs secrete MMP-2 but not MMP-9, identifying MMP-2 as the key player involved in MSC transmigration and invasion.101 Knocking down MMP-2 significantly reduced the transendothelial migration ability of these cells.104 Chemerin, a chemoattractant produced by the liver, adipocytes, and lung, manipulates the transmigration of intravascularly administered MSCs by upregulating MMP-2 expression.105 MT1-MMP, a membrane-tethered metalloenzyme, not only regulates MSC trafficking through the interstitial ECM both in vitro and in vivo but also directs MSC differentiation programs.106 PDGF-BB stimulates MSC migration and proliferation, upregulating MT1-MMP expression on MSCs.107
The expression of four tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs), which inhibit the active form of all MMPs, is induced by inflammatory cytokines or chemokines.108 Silencing of TIMP-1 enhanced MSC migration, indicating that both TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 play opposing roles in the homing process.109 Additionally, TIMP-1 activity is responsible for the antiangiogenic effects of MSCs in inflamed lymph nodes of mice.110 TIMP-3, produced by MSCs, has been recognized as a soluble factor that positively impacts EC function in a mouse model of traumatic brain injury.111 TIMP-4 has been found to be expressed at very low levels in BM-MSCs.112
Strategies to improve MSC homing
The success of MSC therapies is facilitated by the effective delivery of living cells to injured tissues to carry out their biological functions. Beyond the exclusive use of anticoagulants,26 various bioengineering strategies (Table 3), including magnetic guidance, radiotherapeutic techniques, genetic modification, enzymatic modification, protein/antibody conjugation, and priming, have been extensively developed and applied to enhance MSC homing efficiency.27,38 Genetic modification methods, such as viral or mRNA transfection to transiently or permanently overexpress specific molecules governing MSC motility, have been discussed in the previous sections.
Unlike genetic modifications, cell surface engineering aims to chemically alter the surface of MSCs directly through enzymatic modification and protein/antibody conjugation, resulting in temporary but effective enhancements in homing. One such strategy is the enzymatic modification of CD44, which converts CD44 to HCELL through sugar modifications, thereby enabling MSCs to home to the BM via E-selectin and L-selectin.113 This modification also increases MSC infiltration into pancreatic islets threefold following intravenous administration and durably reverses hyperglycemia.114 Attaching anti-ICAM-1 or anti-VCAM-1 antibodies to MSCs has been shown to improve retention and homing to target tissues.115,116 The conjugation of E-selectin-binding peptides onto MSC membranes is utilized to manipulate cell-microenvironment interactions, particularly for targeting cell delivery to specific tissues.117 Gundlach et al. developed a bispecific antibody designed to bind CD90 on MSCs and myosin light chain 1 on ischemic myocardium.118
Priming MSCs with small molecules or soluble factors is a simple and effective strategy to boost the molecules that regulate MSC motility. The upregulation of CXCR4 and MMP-9 in MSCs treated with valproic acid and lithium results in enhanced MSC homing, improved functional recovery, and reduced infarct volume in the brains of rats in a cerebral ischemia model.119 In addition, individual MSCs were encapsulated in hydrogels or microgels to increase the residence time of MSCs in target tissues. Mao et al. demonstrated that encapsulating MSCs in alginate-poly-d-lysine-alginate microgels significantly improved the delivery efficiency of MSCs to target tissues. Magnetic labeling of MSCs has been explored as a strategy for targeted tissue delivery.120 The enhanced homing ability of MSCs labeled with iron oxide was observed to be ten times greater when these cells were intravenously infused into a rat model. One week post-injection, magnetic MSCs demonstrated improved penetration into both the inner and outer retina in comparison to nonmagnetic MSCs.121
Understanding the roles of various molecules expressed or secreted by MSCs is crucial for MSC engineering. Bioengineering strategies not only improve the efficacy of MSCs but also accelerate their accumulation in target tissues. These strategies can enhance clinical outcomes by overcoming the challenges of limited MSC persistence and inadequate homing to targeted sites.
Target organs of MSC homing after systemic administration
The localization of MSCs within various organs post-administration provides critical insights into their interactions with tissues and target cells, which are pivotal for the efficacy of MSC-based therapies.122 MSCs have the capacity to home to inflammatory or injured sites, and their biodistribution varies due to their diverse pathogenesis in different disease models, where chemokine–chemokine receptor axes play an important role (Fig. 1).
Brain
Although MSCs can cross the blood‒brain barrier (BBB), no signal from cells can be detected by any of the tracking modalities in the healthy brain after intravenous injection.123 The biodistribution of MSCs in injured brains is completely different from that in healthy brains. MSCs migrate to injured brains at 4 h and reside in the brain until day 11, which is the endpoint of detection after intravenous administration.124 The homing efficiency and retention time are diverse due to the application of different tracking techniques and administration routes. Oshra et al. monitored the biodistribution of MSCs by a nanoparticle-based computed tomography (CT) imaging technique after orthotopic injection. Gold nanoparticle-labeled MSCs could be detected at 1 h, 24 h, and one month post-injection. However, another study showed that no signal from MSCs can be tracked only on day 2 after intra-arterial transplantation.125 After using mannitol to enhance the penetrability of the BBB, MSCs could be detected on day 7 and day 28 after infusion compared with those in the control group without mannitol pretreatment.126
The conventional SDF-1/CXCR4 and CCL2/CCR2 chemokine axes can participate in the homing of MSCs to injured brains as well as other organs.127,128,129 To improve the homing efficiency of MSCs to injured brains, various strategies can be employed for the modification of MSCs prior to administration. The overexpression of CXCR4 or CCR2 in MSCs is used mostly to increase the targeting ability of cells after intracerebroventricular injection and carotid injection.69,130 Shahror et al. demonstrated that MSCs overexpressing growth factor 21 exhibit enhanced homing efficiency in the damaged brain, thereby improving the therapeutic effects on traumatic brain injury.131 Inflammatory cytokines can also improve the homing ability of MSCs. For example, the upregulation of IL-8 in injured brains has been confirmed, which has been shown to improve the homing ability of BM-derived stem cells.132 Furthermore, pretreatment of MSCs with other soluble factors and chemical agents can also enhance their ability to home to injured brains. Valproate and lithium have been shown to boost the accumulation of MSCs in the tissue of injured brains.119 Other factors, such as IL-3, IL-6, IL-1β, and IFNγ, can also promote the migration of MSCs to injured tissues.133 In addition to gene modification and chemical pretreatment, physical modification can improve the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs by enhancing the ability of cells to home to the brain. More polycluster superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle-labeled MSCs accumulate in the injured brain after intravenous injection and have longer retention times in the brain than control MSCs.134
Colon
Numerous studies have shown that MSCs accumulate preferentially in the lungs and do not migrate to the colon after intravenous injection in a normal mouse model.135 However, the homing of MSCs to damaged colons was increased in a dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis model.136 MSCs were monitored by in vivo optical bioluminescence imaging at 48 h after administration, and imaging revealed an increased number of MSCs in the inflamed colon in colitis mice (1.5–5.5%) in comparison with that in healthy mice (0.3–1%).137
The SDF-1/CXCR4 axis, CXCL2/CXCR2 axis, and CXCL5/CXCR2 axis can play critical roles in the homing of MSCs to the injured colon.87,138 Another study revealed that upregulating CX3CL1 in injured colon tissue and transducing MSCs with lentivirus expressing CX3CR1 markedly enhanced cell accumulation at injured colon sites after 2 h, 24 h, and 8 days intravenous injection.99 Although more MSCs home to damaged colon sites in disease models than in healthy models, the homing efficiency remains insufficient to achieve optimal therapeutic effects. A series of modification strategies could be employed to improve the migration of MSCs to the inflamed colon. Fu et al. constructed dual-functionalized MSCs that overexpress CX3CR1 and IL-25, which can promote the delivery of MSCs to inflamed colons and improve therapeutic effects on inflammatory bowel disease.99 Among the chemokine receptors, CXCR2 plays an important role in regulating the migration of MSCs to damaged tissues, and transient CXCR2 expression on MSCs can enhance the migration of cells to damaged colons.87 When coupled with an anti-VCAM-1 antibody, MSCs had greater migration efficiency than control MSCs and completely attenuated colitis.139 The expression of CXCR4 can be upregulated by pretreating MSCs with IL-1β, which can enhance the migration rate of cells to the colon.140 In addition to IL-1β, IFNγ can also increase the homing of MSCs to injured tissues of the colon.141 The upregulation of ICAM-1 or CXCR4 demonstrated a positive regulatory relationship with the homing efficiency of MSCs to the injured colon.142 Chemical methods for improving the targeting ability of MSCs have been utilized in many studies. Polyribocytidylic acid, the ligand of Toll-like receptor (TLR3), has been confirmed to promote MSC homing by activating TLR3.143
Heart
Intravenously administered MSCs can be detected in infarcted hearts on days 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16, peaking on day 1 and then decreasing with time.144 Another study revealed that less than 1% of administered MSCs accumulate in hearts under normal conditions; however, more than 3% of intravenously injected cells could still be monitored in infarcted hearts after 3 months.145 Andrzejewska et al. also demonstrated that MSCs can be tracked in injured heart regions for up to 7 days following intravenous injection.60
Many reports have shown that chemokines, such as SDF-1, CCL7, CCL2, CCL5, CCL25, and CX3CL1, are upregulated in infarcted hearts and are involved in the homing of MSCs to these damaged areas.146,147,148,149 Overexpression of protein kinase C ε and monocyte chemotactic protein-3 (MCP-3 or CCL7) can improve both the capacity of MSCs to migrate to infarcted hearts and their therapeutic effects.71,150 In addition, coupling MSCs with a palmitated peptide resulted in an increased number of MSCs in ischemic heart tissue compared with noncoated controls.151
Kidney
Only 5.4% of administered MSCs migrated to healthy kidneys after intravenous injection, but treatment with cis-platinum increased the release of chemokines from injured kidneys, enhancing MSC homing to 6.4%.152 Furthermore, the difference in the distribution of MSCs is partly attributed to the route of administration, with more MSCs accumulating in injured kidneys 15 min after intra-arterial injection than after intravenous injection in a mouse acute kidney injury model. Most MSCs disappeared within 2 days, with only a barely detectable positive signal remaining in both groups.153,154 Another study reported that more MSCs could be detected in injured kidneys than in normal kidneys 2 h after tail vein injection155; these MSCs exhibited longer retention times and primarily accumulated in the glomeruli of the injured kidneys.156
Emerging data show that the CCL2/CCR2 axis and SDF-1/CXCR4 axis participate in the migration of MSCs to the kidney.32,157 The therapeutic efficacy of MSCs is closely associated with the number of MSCs migrating to the injured region of the kidney. Many methods for enhancing the homing efficiency of MSCs have been reported. CXCR4 overexpression significantly increased the migratory capacity of MSCs in injured kidneys and has been used in many disease models.158 When coupled with kidney injury molecule-1, MSCs migrate to ischemic kidneys more and reside in kidneys for a longer time.159 Pretreating MSCs with erythropoietin, the transforming growth factor β, and insulin-like growth factor-1 can improve the homing ability and restore the function of injured kidneys.160,161,162 Additionally, ultrasound can enhance the homing capacity of MSCs through the use of various nanoparticles in acute kidney injury.163,164
Liver
Compared to the normal model, the injured liver model exhibited greater homing efficiency (28.7–35.3%).165 Furthermore, in a normal mouse model, no MSCs were detectable at 5 days after intravenous injection.122 However, MSCs were detected in CCl4-injured livers 24 h post-injection,166 with the greatest homing observed in the injured liver tissues 1 week after intravenous injection.165,167 Furthermore, compared to intravenous injection, hepatic artery delivery shows greater homing efficiency (20–30%) to injured livers.168
The use of inflammatory cytokines, hypoxia, chemical agents, and genetic modifications could improve the homing of MSCs to injured livers. Cytokines play a critical role in the homing of MSCs to injured livers. The upregulation of cytokines such as stem cell factor-1, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), MMPs, and chemokines in injured livers accelerates their homing to the liver.169 A previous study revealed that the upregulation of CCL2 in damaged livers and the overexpression of its receptor CCR2 in MSCs can enhance the delivery of MSCs to damaged livers.68,170 Transfecting MSCs with lentivirus overexpressing c-Met can improve the survival rate of rats in an acute liver failure model by enhancing the homing capacity of MSCs.171 Activation of the HGF/c-Met signaling pathway can improve the migration of MSCs to injured sites, so overexpression of HGF is desirable for the targeting of damaged liver sites by MSCs.172 Pretreating MSCs with IFNγ can increase the homing ability of MSCs to damaged liver tissues.173 IL-6 can also improve the homing capacity of MSCs in the fibrotic liver.174 In addition, pretreatment of MSCs with chemical agents such as sodium nitroprusside, preoperative resveratrol, and melatonin accelerates MSC homing, thereby improving therapeutic efficacy through increased localization of MSCs in the injured liver.175,176,177
Lung
MSCs are initially trapped in the lungs after intravenous injection and then redistributed to other organs with high blood flow, such as the liver, primarily because the structural characteristics of the lung microvasculature cause the majority of MSCs to become sequestered there.33 However, the population of MSCs residing in the lungs diminishes due to increased permeability under injured conditions in the initial stage of injection. Emerging data confirm that transplanted MSCs home more effectively to injured lungs than to normal lungs, as chemokines released from inflammatory sites in the blood system recruit these cells to injured areas.178,179,180
The regulation of signaling pathways could similarly enhance the homing capacity to injury sites. MSCs with downregulated Hippo signaling, which can promote the migration of cells, attenuate lung injury in ARDS mice.181 With the knockout of vimentin, fewer MSCs colonize injured lungs.182 After transduction with a lentiviral vector carrying the E-prostanoid 2, the capacity of MSCs to home to injured lung tissues improved significantly.183 Pretreating MSCs with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can promote the ability of MSCs to home to injured lungs by upregulating the expression of CXCR4.184 Furthermore, the retention time of injected MSCs in mice could be increased via radiation.185
Skin
MSCs are not detectable in healthy mouse skin after intravenous injection. However, increased numbers of MSCs can be detected in injured skin, and this process is mediated by multiple chemokine axes. Alexeev et al. demonstrated the upregulation of CCL27 in wounded skin tissue and the importance of the CCL27/CCR10 axis in the homing of MSCs to damaged skin.82 Increased expression of CXCR6 on MSCs enhanced the accumulation of cells in wound sites on the skin, which was assisted by the upregulation of the ligand CXCL16 in damaged skin.75 In addition, the ability of the CCL2/CCR2 axis and CCL27/CCR10 axis to enhance the homing efficiency of MSCs has been confirmed in several studies.67,78,186 After pretreatment with inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-17, and plant-derived components, such as protocatechuic acid, cannabinoids, and icariin, a sufficient number of MSCs can migrate to wounded skin.187,188 Junction adhesion molecule A may accelerate the repair of wounded skin and improve the therapeutic effects of MSCs by increasing their ability to migrate to damaged skin.189
Other organs
The target organs of MSCs also include the ear and ovary. MSCs can be tracked at 24 h after transplantation in the injured ovary.190 Another study showed that MSCs were located in the interstitium of the ovary at 4 weeks after tail vein injection.191 The SDF-1/CXCR4 axis participates in the homing of MSCs to the ovary.92 Hyaluronic acid improves the homing ability of MSCs to the sites of injured ears.192 Moreover, the glycoengineering of MSCs significantly enhances their homing to tumors.193
Overall, after peripheral intravenous injection, MSCs are initially trapped in the lungs,33 with a smaller portion passing through to reach organs with rich blood flow, such as the liver,165 kidney,152 and brain,123 and minimal numbers of MSCs migrating to the skin.82 Most in vivo distribution studies have been conducted in mice or rats, and given the significant differences in vascular diameters between these animals and humans, these results cannot be directly translated to humans. MSCs labeled with 111In-oxine show a gradual decrease in lung retention and an increase in liver and spleen retention over time in humans.194 These findings suggest that MSCs may display unconventional pharmacokinetic characteristics, with the levels of inflammatory cytokines in vivo and molecules regulating MSC motility being crucial parameters for pharmacokinetic evaluation.
The fate of MSC after transplantation
Several preclinical MSC therapy studies have demonstrated that MSCs do not persist in the body long-term and are gradually cleared over time.27,195 There are significant differences in the persistence of MSCs in vivo across various experiments. Some studies indicate that MSCs can survive in the body for only 24–28 h,33,196 whereas other studies have shown that MSCs are still detectable up to 120 days post-administration.197 The long-term persistence of MSCs in vivo carries the risk of tumor formation, while short-term persistence may restrict their therapeutic efficacy. Hence, understanding the fate of MSCs is essential for assessing their safety and efficacy. While metabolism and excretion represent the fate of conventional drugs, apoptosis, autophagy, differentiation, ferroptosis, phagocytosis, and senescence are the fates of MSCs (Fig. 2). An increasing understanding of the fate of MSCs after intravenous injection has advanced further research into the mechanisms underlying their therapeutic effects.
Apoptosis
Apoptosis, a programmed cell death process, is mediated by diverse signaling pathways and is triggered by multiple factors, such as cellular stress, DNA damage, and other proapoptotic agents.198 MSCs undergo apoptosis in different target organs after administration, whether in a physiological or pathological environment. He et al. investigated the apoptosis of MSCs after infusion in a mouse liver and spinal cord injury model and attributed the therapeutic effects to the release of phosphatidylserine from apoptotic cells. Apoptotic MSCs were first detected at 2 h post-injection in the liver and lung and markedly decreased at 12 h and 24 h, respectively.72 Another study revealed that in a GvHD model, MSC apoptosis was induced by perforin released from cytotoxic cells one hour after injection, and the MSCs were primarily localized in the lung and spleen. Subsequently, the phagocytosis of apoptotic MSCs by macrophages is essential for the immunosuppressive effects of MSCs, as it leads to the production of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase.8 However, Swee et al. reported that MSC apoptosis occurs not only in a pathological environment but also in a physiological state after infusion. After intravenous injection, MSCs rapidly undergo apoptosis in the lungs of recipient mice. Furthermore, the results suggested that apoptosis is not dependent on host cytotoxic or alloreactive cells.199
The apoptosis of MSCs, a complex process influenced by various factors, is driven by inflammatory cytokines such as IFNγ and TNFα, which induce the upregulation of inducible nitric oxide synthase and the production of nitric oxide through the activation of the STAT1 signaling pathway.200,201 MSCs have been utilized in the treatment of conditions such as ischemia and myocardial infarction, where the proapoptotic effects are primarily orchestrated through the intricate PI3K/AKT signaling cascade due to low oxygen levels and a lack of essential nutrients in the blood.202,203,204,205 The overexpression of certain microRNAs under pathological conditions can initiate apoptosis by downregulating antiapoptotic protein expression, as demonstrated by a study in which miRNA-98-5p triggered apoptosis in MSCs by targeting insulin-like growth factor type 2 mRNA-binding protein 1 and modulating the PI3K/AKT and p53 signaling pathways.206 Increasing evidence indicates that enhanced reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation at injury sites, along with high glucose and other contents released from red blood cells, can induce MSC apoptosis.207,208,209,210,211
Autophagy
Autophagy plays an important role in maintaining the therapeutic effects of MSCs.212 As one of the intracellular degradation systems, autophagy is a complex process composed of a variety of signaling pathways that can be triggered by diverse inducers.213 Among the diverse fates of MSCs, autophagy can be activated by various factors, such as cell starvation, inflammation, and oxidative stress.214 MSCs were detected in the lungs at 24 and 48 h post-administration, with a significant increase in the autophagy marker microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 (MAP1LC3). However, MSCs were not detected in the spinal cord until 72 h post-injection, at which time they could still be detected 120 h later, accompanied by a significant increase in MAP1LC3.215 A reduction in IGF-1 expression results in the downregulation of the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway and the upregulation of autophagy in aged MSCs exposed to hypoxic conditions.216 Autophagy also enhances MSC survival in vitro under conditions of starvation, hypoxia, or exposure to ROS.217,218,219
Differentiation
MSCs, a heterogeneous subset of multipotent stromal stem cells, can differentiate into adipocytes, osteocytes, and chondrocytes. Emerging studies have shown that MSCs can also differentiate into ECs and neurons at injury sites after transplantation.12 Therefore, the differentiation potential of MSCs is vital for their therapeutic effects. Some MSCs express EC-specific markers after intracerebral administration in a rat model of stroke, revealing that the increase in vascular density is mediated by the differentiation of MSCs into ECs.220 Another study revealed that human adult dental pulp MSCs preferentially differentiated into astrocytes after intracerebral transplantation in a focal cerebral ischemia model.221 Only a few MSCs differentiate into other cells, which mainly occur in the bone, brain, and blood vessels after administration via different pathways.222
The differentiation of MSCs is regulated by various signaling pathways that intricately coordinate this complex process. Intraflagellar transport 20 plays a critical role in determining MSC fate, and its depletion results in a marked increase in adipocyte differentiation.223 In contrast, the suppression of sex-determining region Y box 9 protein hinders the adipocyte differentiation of MSCs through the inhibition of the transcription factor CCAAT enhancer binding protein β.224 The interaction between integrator complex subunit 7 and ATP-binding cassette subfamily D member 3, along with the presence of serum IGF-1, facilitates the osteoblast differentiation of MSCs, offering potential for treating osteoporosis.225,226
Ferroptosis
Ferroptosis, which was originally described by Dixon et al. in 2012, represents a distinct form of regulated cell death that is mechanistically different from apoptosis.227 This iron-dependent process is characterized by the accumulation of intracellular iron and increased levels of lipid peroxidation.228,229 Ferroptosis is inhibited by the overexpression of NOP2/Sun RNA methyltransferase 5 or ferritin heavy chain/light-chain in MSCs.230 Conversely, the murine double minute 2-TLR4 axis and the prominin2-BACH1 axis can also participate in ferroptosis in MSCs.231,232 The occurrence of ferroptosis in MSCs after transplantation reduces their efficacy, and intervention strategies are urgently needed to improve their therapeutic effect. Chen et al. demonstrated that increased levels of peroxiredoxin-2 in MSCs can improve therapeutic outcomes in a neurogenic erectile dysfunction rat model by suppressing ferroptosis.233 Strategically modulating metabolic pathways to inhibit ferroptosis in MSCs can substantially increase the therapeutic potential for ameliorating hepatic damage.234,235,236
Phagocytosis
MSCs have been widely recognized as promising tools for treating autoimmune diseases because of their ability to cross-talk with various immune cells. Several experiments revealed that nearly half of MSCs were subjected to phagocytosis after intravenous injection.237 MSCs are usually trapped in the lungs and disappear within a day under normal conditions. The fate of MSCs after their disappearance from the lungs was elucidated, showing that MSCs were primarily phagocytized by blood-derived monocytes in the lungs and subsequently redistributed to the liver.195 Another study revealed that MSCs are injured upon contact with blood compounds due to the complement system,238,239 and this apoptosis and injury facilitate their phagocytosis by monocytes.8 In addition to monocytes, tissue-resident macrophages can also phagocytize intravenously injected MSCs. In a mouse model of asthma, MSCs were primarily localized in the alveolar and capillary walls 1 h post-injection and were phagocytized by lung-resident macrophages 24 h post-injection.240 Furthermore, MSCs can be phagocytized by splenic macrophages at 3 h and 24 h after intravenous injection in tumor-bearing mice.241
Senescence
MSCs tend to become senescent after injection due to crosstalk with the microenvironment, which hinders their clinical application and leads to undesirable therapeutic effects. MSCs become senescent with increased expression of senescence-associated genes during long-term in vitro culture and due to replicative senescence and their niche after in vivo administration.242 The mechanisms and induction factors of senescence have been described in many studies. ROS not only induce autophagy but also promote the senescence of MSCs.243,244 D-galactose (D-gal) can promote intracellular ROS generation, which markedly induces cell senescence. Coenzyme Q10 and ascorbic acid inhibit the pro-senescence effect of D-gal on MSCs through AKT/mTOR signaling.244,245 In addition to ROS, microRNAs can induce cellular senescence, and inhibiting microRNA-45 and microRNA-155-5p can rejuvenate senescent MSCs.246,247 Overexpression of apelin and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 4 could rejuvenate senescent MSCs via the PI3K/AKT and AMPK signaling pathways after administration and enhance the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs in a myocardial infarction model.248,249 Knockdown of CD26 reduces senescence-associated cytokine secretion and potentiates the therapeutic effects of MSCs by delaying the senescence of MSCs in a mouse emphysema model.250
Premature senescence of MSCs, which occurs more frequently during the pre-processing and early post-injection stages than natural senescence, remains a significant hurdle in clinical application.251 Multiple signaling pathways are involved in the regulation of the premature senescence of MSCs, with the ROS/mTOR/4EBP1/p70S6K1/2 pathway and the FoxO3a pathway playing key roles in this process.251,252 Many strategies have been employed in studies to prevent premature senescence as much as possible and improve the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs. Walnut kernel oil and defatted extracts enhance MSC stemness and delay senescence.253 Depletion of GATA binding protein 4 can hinder SASP-dependent senescence in MSCs by suppressing the NF-κB pathway.254
Currently, the apoptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, and other fates of MSCs have been investigated in vitro. However, many findings on the in vivo fate of MSCs after injection are unknown, which limits the detection and evaluation of MSC efficacy to an extent. In the future, elucidating the fate of MSCs within various target organs in vivo will be crucial, necessitating the development of new probes and biotechnology for such investigations.
The imaging and tracking modalities of MSC
The homing and persistence of transplanted MSCs in vivo remain poorly understood due to technical limitations, which hinders their clinical translation. Precise and effective detection methods are vital for exploring the migration and distribution of MSCs. Current methods for imaging and tracking in vivo include gene quantitative detection, optical imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), nuclear medicine imaging, ultrasound imaging, and photoacoustic imaging (Fig. 3),255 each of which has advantages and disadvantages (Table 4).256 To precisely and effectively detect the biodistribution of MSCs in vivo, a combination of different approaches is required.
Methods for detecting MSC pharmacokinetics
Flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR) detection systems are commonly used for the invasive detection of MSCs.257,258 With convenient operation and high sensitivity, Q-PCR can detect and quantify MSCs quickly without labeling, but it cannot distinguish between living and dead cells.259 Flow cytometry is performed by collecting limited tissues for analysis and requires labeling with specific antibodies, which is less accurate and stable than Q-PCR.260 Although IHC can directly detect the distribution of MSCs, it cannot achieve long-term in vivo tracking of cells.261
In vivo tracking of MSCs involves direct and indirect labeling, commonly using radioisotopes, magnetic nanoparticles, and fluorescent dyes for direct labeling. After incubation with the above labeling materials and administration to animals, MSCs can be detected by positron emission tomography (PET)/single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), MRI, and in vivo fluorescence imaging. These tracking technologies can noninvasively and continuously monitor the dynamic distribution of MSCs in preclinical and clinical trials.256 In addition, superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles are used most often in MRI technology,262 and the radioisotopes 64Cu-PSTM, 18F-FDG, 111In-oxine, and 99mTc are the primary tracer agents used in PET/SPECT.263 Although the direct labeling method is more convenient, markers are diluted through cell division and shed from cells over time, reducing the accuracy of long-term tracking.
Indirectly labeled MSCs are tracked by detecting fluorescent proteins or specific proteins combined with a nuclide probe, which are transferred into cells by gene modification. Optical imaging technologies, classified as fluorescence imaging and bioluminescence, are popular for tracking living cells. Fluorescence imaging (FLI) detects cells by fluorescence microscopy and mainly monitors the distribution of cells in animals because of limits on detection depth.264 Bioluminescence-based imaging (BLI) is a minimally invasive technique for experimental animals in which luciferase is continuously and stably expressed in MSCs.265
Optical imaging
Based on the detection of light emission from molecules after excitation via an internal charged-coupled device camera, optical imaging, which mainly consists of BLI and FLI, plays an important role in researching the biodistribution of MSCs in different disease models.266 With high accessibility and the possibility of long-term tracking, optical imaging is widely used for tracking MSCs. Compared to nuclear imaging modalities, optical imaging has fewer negative effects on cell proliferation, viability, and differentiation. Furthermore, most of the labeling reagents for optical imaging are suitable for longitudinal detection.267
FLI relies on various fluorophores that can be excited by specific wavelength light sources, with the emitted light collected by fluorescence signaling components and transformed into images by signal detection and amplification components.268 The exogenous labeling of MSCs using fluorescence has been recognized as an important imaging approach in vivo with excellent accessibility and operability. One of the conventional exogenous fluorescent dyes is hloromethyl-dialkylcarbocyanine, which is frequently used to track labeled cells, especially those that bind to the cell membrane.269 In addition, quantum dots are nanomaterials with intense fluorescence and diverse colors that can directly label MSCs, offering advantages over conventional fluorescent agents.270 To enable long-term cell tracking without affecting cell proliferation and potency, novel fluorescent probes are essential. Liu et al. designed a biocompatible and photostable nanoprobe made of polycaprolactone and di(thiophene-2-yl)-diketopyrrolopyrrole that retained strong fluorescence for up to 4 weeks for MSC differentiation tracing.271 However, one drawback of labeling MSCs directly with fluorescent reagents is a false positive signal. When transfected with fluorescent protein plasmids or virus vectors, MSCs have a greater signal-to-noise ratio than when directly labeled with fluorescent agents. The biodistribution of MSCs labeled with green fluorescent protein has been tracked, and the action of these cells post-administration have been characterized.272,273 Compared with other fluorescent reagents, near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent dyes with emission wavelengths ranging from 740 nm to 1700 nm exhibit reduced tissue absorbance, scattering, and autofluorescence, thereby enabling greater depth of penetration. After being labeled with NIR, MSCs can be continuously traced in vivo for up to 21 days, and liver regeneration can be visualized in an acute liver failure model.274
BLI relies on the photon emission generated by the catalytic conversion of luciferase, which facilitates the intramolecular oxidation of luciferin in the presence of ATP and oxygen within luciferase-expressing MSCs.275 All of the studies tracked cells in real time after injection for up to 4 weeks, which is superior to nuclear imaging.276,277,278 BLI can also avoid interference from background and biological autofluorescence signals during the imaging process.
In summary, optical imaging is widely used for MSC tracking due to its long-term tracking ability, lower cytotoxicity compared to nuclear imaging, diverse fluorescent reagents, and accessibility. However, its poor tissue penetrability and light scattering limit its use in small animal imaging (Table 5).
Nuclear imaging
Nuclear imaging tracks the biodistribution of MSCs by imaging tracers that have been labeled with radionuclides. There are three nuclear imaging techniques: PET, SPECT, and planar gamma scintigraphy.279 PET and SPECT will be summarized in this review since they are used more widely than planar gamma scintigraphy in the tracking of MSCs.
The gamma-ray photons with well-defined energy levels emitted from SPECT radioactive tracers can be captured directly by a gamma camera, where they are eventually digitized to provide 3D information on the biodistribution of MSCs279 Although the SPECT imaging modality offers relatively high sensitivity and quantifiability, its widespread application in the long-term tracking of MSCs is limited due to the use of radiotracers with short half-lives. 99mTc, which has a half-life of only 6 h, can be detected persistently for 3 days in vivo after injection.280 Compared with 99mTc, 111In-labeled MSCs can be detected up to 14 days after intravenous injection because of their long half-life (t1/2 = 2.81 days). Another drawback of SPECT is its cytotoxicity associated with the use of radiotracers. Although it has no impact on the viability or differentiation of human MSCs labeled with 111In, many other experiments have shown that radiotracer labeling can affect MSC viability and differentiation in a dose-dependent manner.281 Owing to the imaging properties of SPECT, the signal of MSCs in deep tissues could also be captured by a detection camera. When human BM-MSCs were labeled with 99mTc, their biodistribution in arthrosis was fully depicted using a gamma camera.282
PET imaging involves capturing the signals of gamma photons emitted in opposite directions by positron-emitting radionuclides using a ring detector, followed by data processing and image reconstruction. In contrast to SPECT, the PET imaging modality has higher spatial and temporal resolution but shorter cell tracking time in vivo. However, similar to SPECT, PET imaging is limited by time-dependent ionizing radiation injury to target cells and the short half-life of tracers, which restricts its use in long-term cell tracking.279 The isotopic tracers commonly used in PET imaging are 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and 18F-FHBG.270,283 Nose et al. tracked the biodistribution of MSCs in multiple animal species using PET imaging with 18F- FDG following various routes of administration.284 While 89Zr, which has a longer half-life (t1/2 = 78.4 h) than 18F (t1/2 = 109.7 min), can also be used for tracking MSCs, Patrick et al. labeled MSCs with 89Zr to show its delivery to the lungs in a mouse lung cancer model up to 7 days post-injection.285 While nuclear imaging offers good tissue penetrability and sensitivity, its limited spatial resolution and short imaging time make it unsuitable for precise and longitudinal MSC imaging (Table 5).
Magnetic resonance imaging
MRI is a powerful imaging tool with superior spatial resolution and tissue penetrability under preclinical and clinical conditions.286 This modality can also provide 3D information on MSC biodistribution as well as nuclear imaging. Tracing cells with MRI requires labeling cells with contrast reagents, such as superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs), paramagnetic metals (Gd3+ and Mn2+/3+) or micron-sized iron oxide particles.287,288,289 While ferumoxide-labeled MSCs were observed only in the lung, perfluorocarbon-labeled MSCs dispersed to other distant organs.290 Most cell tracking studies use dextran or carboxy dextran-coated SPIONs, which are designed for uptake by phagocytic cells291; however, their impact on MSC proliferation and function must be evaluated. Novel SPIONs coated with amino-polyvinyl alcohol, which offer greater colloidal stability, greater solubility, greater biocompatibility, and lower toxicity, have been developed and are primarily taken up by MSCs.292
Despite its high spatial resolution and tissue penetrability, MRI has low sensitivity and long imaging times, making it difficult to track labeled cells throughout the whole body and determine their migration beyond damaged tissue. Furthermore, the accessibility of MRI is undesirable due to the high cost of imaging instruments (Table 5).
Magnetic particle imaging
Magnetic particle imaging (MPI), which usually involves the use of noncytotoxic SPIONs, is a relatively new tomographic imaging technique (Table 5). MPI can detect nanoparticle tracers at any time and space in the body with greater spatial and temporal resolution than MRI.293 Sehl et al. compared the sensitivity of MPI and MRI using perfluoropolyether-labeled MSCs and revealed that MPI reliably detected 4000 MSCs, while MRI detected 256,000 MSCs at the same time.294 Zheng et al. utilized MPI to dynamically track and quantify the biodistribution of SPION-labeled MSCs following intravenous injection in mice. One hour post-injection, MSCs primarily accumulate in the lungs before gradually migrating to the liver within 1 day.295
Photoacoustic imaging and ultrasound imaging
As a non-invasive and emerging imaging modality, photoacoustic imaging (PAI) offers rich optical contrast, high ultrasonic resolution, and fast data acquisition, making it suitable for real-time imaging (Table 5). Given these advantages, Li et al. demonstrated that Prussian blue particle-labeled MSCs were able to cross the BBB and subsequently migrate to injured brain regions.296 Dhada et al. developed a contrast agent with inert gold nanorods coated with IR775c, a ROS-sensitive near-infrared dye, enabling the measurement of MSC viability and longitudinal location by combining ultrasound imaging with PAI.297
Multiple-modality imaging
With the development of MSC clinical research, real-time, low cytotoxicity, high temporal and spatial resolution, and long-term imaging modalities are required (Table 5). Since a single imaging modality cannot simultaneously meet all these requirements, multiple-modality imaging has emerged in recent years.33 Combining nuclear imaging with bioluminescence-based imaging enables long-term cell tracking and is complemented by anatomical information from CT, effectively offsetting the limitations of each method.298 Ultrasound imaging and PAI offer high contrast, flexibility, and fast acquisition for real-time MSC transplantation guidance, while MRI with anatomical imaging resolution and SPECT with high sensitivity and quantitative capability are ideal for long-term monitoring of cell biodistribution and migration in vivo. Yao et al. combined these modalities to monitor engrafted MSCs in real-time and track their long-term biodistribution.299 The optical-MRI modality can improve the sensitivity of MSC detection in vivo and the resolution of imaging.255
In recent years, in vivo tracking imaging technologies have developed rapidly. Compared with single detection technology, employing multiple methods provides more comprehensive monitoring of MSC distribution in vivo. By combining Q-PCR with various imaging techniques, the dynamic spatial distribution of living cells, along with anatomical structures and molecular phenotypes at single-cell resolution, can be obtained. This approach provides robust data to support the evaluation of the efficacy of MSC therapies. Furthermore, with the advancement of multimodality imaging techniques, it is essential to develop nanoprobes with multiple imaging properties to enable effective imaging of MSCs after transplantation. This is crucial for the clinical tracking and application of MSCs.
Druggability research for clinical translation
Like conventional drugs, MSCs also adhere to the guidelines of safety, effectiveness, and quality controllability. Despite their remarkable efficacy in preclinical animal trials, MSC therapies have faced challenges in clinical translation due to individual variability and the considerable number of non-responsive patients.300 Several factors may lead to suboptimal clinical outcomes, including heterogeneity in MSC product potency, pharmacokinetics across different administration routes and a limited understanding of how host responses post-administration impact therapeutic efficacy.301 Elucidating the relationships among the disease state, biological distribution, and efficacy of MSCs in vivo helps address a significant challenge to their clinical application. Preclinical research on the druggability of MSCs should not only clarify the relationship between their dynamic biodistribution and efficacy but also elucidate their mechanisms of action and develop reliable biomarkers. These efforts will improve patient stratification and facilitate the establishment of precise therapeutic strategies, ultimately optimizing clinical efficacy (Fig. 4).
Guidelines and consensus
Conventional preclinical and clinical evaluation methods are inadequate for cell-based products due to the differences between cells and conventional pharmaceuticals. The use of MSCs and other cell therapies is under the regulatory oversight of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, specifically the Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies in the United States. MSCs and other cell therapies are categorized under Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in the European Union. Japan regulates medical products derived from human cells, genes, or tissues under the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act (PMD Act).302 In China, all cell therapies, including MSC therapy products, immune cell products, and gene-modified cell products, can be found in the Technical Guidelines for Research and Evaluation of Cell Therapy Products issued by the NMPA in 2017. The NMPA updated the Biological Products Appendix of the GMP for Drugs in 2020 and drafted the Appendix for Cell Therapy Products in the draft version of the GMP for Drugs. Furthermore, the NMPA drafted the Technical Guidance Principles for Clinical Trials of Human Stem Cells and Their Derived Cell Therapy Products on August 4, 2020. New drug development must adhere to the current Chinese Pharmacopoeia and other national drug standards.303 The guidelines and consensus on new drug applications for MSCs or other cell therapy products have been comprehensively reviewed elsewhere.264,303,304,305
Quality control of MSC therapies
Although the translation of MSCs from bench to bedside is feasible, most MSC therapies face unsuccessful late-stage clinical trials, with notable safety profiles but often limited efficacy in humans. These failures emphasize the challenges associated with the quality control of MSCs for clinical trials.18 Given the high heterogeneity and complex biology of MSCs in vivo, enhancing manufacturing processes and formulation technologies and establishing standardized production systems and personalized quality control are essential for successful clinical trials.301
The International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT) initially established three minimum criteria for human MSCs based on their morphology, surface markers, and trilineage differentiation.306 MSCs are defined as adherent cells with a spindle-shaped morphology under standard culture conditions. These cells exhibited the following characteristics: (1) expression of CD105, CD73, and CD90 but lacking expression of CD45, CD34, CD14, or CD11b, CD79a, CD19, or HLA-DR; and (2) the capacity for differentiation into osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondrocytes in vitro.307 These criteria reflected the “stemness” of MSCs rather than determining their therapeutic properties. Given the variations that exist at multiple levels, these criteria were insufficient to define MSCs comprehensively. In 2019, ISCT updated its standards for defining MSCs to include tissue origin and relevant functional assays to clarify their associated therapeutic mode. Furthermore, regulatory agencies mandate the identification, viability, purity, potency, proliferative capacity, genomic stability, and microbiological testing of MSCs.308,309
The aforementioned criteria do not encompass the efficacy of MSC therapies; quality control of MSC therapies also includes the following: (1) the source of MSCs, considering the health status, genetics, gender, and age of donors, as well as diverse tissue origins1,310; (2) the methods employed for isolating and obtaining cells from these tissues, whether through enzymatic or mechanical dissociation, which can impact the efficacy of MSCs311; (3) culture conditions, including aspects such as the composition of the culture medium, oxygen levels, flask/bioreactor, passage number, and cell surface modifications, which may similarly affect the efficacy and homing capacity of MSCs308,312; (4) the techniques used for cryopreservation and subsequent thawing/culture rescue, which can influence the viability, function, and homing potential of MSCs313,314,315; and (5) the expression of biomarkers for efficacy and target tissue homing, such as paracrine effectors and chemokine receptors.316,317
Pharmacokinetics of different sources
The biodistribution of MSCs can be influenced by various factors, such as cell type, route of administration, and host immune status. MSCs from different tissues are capable of trilineage differentiation (osteogenesis, chondrogenesis, and adipogenesis) and exhibit similar surface markers, but significant differences still exist in terms of their biological characteristics and functions.318 MSCs isolated from BM and adipose tissues express the same surface biomarkers but differ in the expression of cell adhesion molecules such as integrin α4, ICAM-1, CD34, and VCAM-1.319 Li et al. compared the proteomes of MSCs derived from the BM, placenta, and umbilical cord to investigate their expression of migration-related proteins, and the results showed that the migration ability of UC-MSCs was weaker than that of MSCs from the BM and placenta (5.9-fold and 3.2-fold, respectively).320 However, Hori et al. reported that UC-MSCs exhibit greater migration toward lymphocytes than do BM and adipose tissue-derived MSCs.321 These differences may be attributed to variations in chemokine receptors among MSCs from distinct tissue sources.
The differences between autologous and allogeneic MSCs extend to their pharmacokinetics. The lower immunogenicity of autologous MSCs enables them to rapidly localize to target tissues or organs without encountering immune rejection. Consequently, they exhibit prolonged survival in the body due to reduced susceptibility to host immune attack and clearance.322,323 However, the application of allogeneic MSCs is encouraged because of factors such as their source and quantity. The industry-sponsored production of allogeneic MSCs enables the manufacture of up to 1 million doses per donor for widespread deployment, far exceeding the capacity of autologous MSCs,324 indicating that this choice is not solely driven by biological advantages.
Preclinical pharmacokinetic research
Pharmacokinetic studies of MSC therapy, which track the biodistribution and fate of cells, play an indispensable role in elucidating the in vivo processes and associated biological actions, as well as in explaining the safety and efficacy of cell therapy products. The pharmacokinetic studies also evaluated the dose concentration, interval and route of administration. The Technical Guidelines for Research and Evaluation of Cell Therapy Products (China) emphasize the application of one or more methods to monitor the dynamic distribution, migration, homing, survival, and extinction of cell therapy products. Additionally, preclinical pharmacokinetic research should focus on the physiological processes of MSC therapy products in vivo, examining their differentiation capabilities and the biological effects related to their biodistribution.303,305 Although none of the agencies recommend methods for analyzing the spatial and temporal distribution of cells, a fundamental principle is that the methods employed should utilize the highest sensitivity currently available. Examples of such methods listed in the guidelines include MRI, PET, SPECT, FLI, autoradiography, PCR, IHC, and in situ hybridization.264 Moreover, the selection of appropriate animal models should align with the pathogenesis and therapeutic mechanism of MSCs.264 In addition to examining the conventional distribution and migration of MSCs, it is important to consider the impact of gene modification or bioengineering approaches on MSCs, their expression or secretion of biomolecules, and their interactions with host cells, which involve the tissue responses induced by the secretion of bioactive molecules from MSCs.304 The preclinical pharmacokinetic characteristics of MSCs can help inform experimental design and patient stratification in clinical pharmacokinetic research.
Clinical pharmacokinetic research
Clinical pharmacokinetic research cannot employ invasive detection methods such as those used in animal experiments. Extrapolating the results of animal studies of MSC therapies to humans is challenging. The mismatch between mouse and human clinical outcomes may arise from differences in immune compatibility, dosage, condition of culture-adapted MSCs, and variations in disease states of the hosts.18 In addition to the aforementioned factors in preclinical pharmacokinetic research, individual variability presents a significant challenge in clinical pharmacokinetic research. The diverse pathological conditions, such as varying levels of inflammation and oxygen, present in clinical subjects greatly impact the pharmacokinetic characteristics of MSCs in the body, thereby influencing the quantity and viability of MSCs that reach specific target organs or tissues.256 Moreover, the interactions between MSCs and host cells lead to variations in their therapeutic efficacy.325 Alsasem et al. developed an advanced, real-time framework for managing MSC transfusions in COVID-19 patients by automatically categorizing patients into various emergency levels and prioritizing them based on their individual status within each level.326 Another important consideration is that the biodistribution of administered MSCs may be influenced by the age of the recipient, which is closely linked to varying metabolic disorders and immunity.327 The pharmacokinetic biomarkers of MSCs identified in preclinical studies can be used to predict and validate clinical pharmacokinetics in patients. The development of therapeutic strategies for individual patients to achieve precise and personalized therapy is emerging as a crucial direction for the future advancement of MSC therapy.
Pharmacokinetics model for systemic administration
To satisfy the clinical requirement for the accuracy of MSC dosage, several pharmacokinetic models have been designed. Previous studies have used a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model, referring to MSCs as inactive and micron-sized nanoparticles, to predict their distribution, yielding remarkably similar data to the actual bioavailability of MSCs post-transplantation.328 However, this model was unable to predict the precise biodistribution of MSCs due to its disregard of MSCs as a dynamic “living therapy”. By integrating anatomical structure into the design, the physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model offers greater physiological similarity and prediction accuracy. The first PBPK model of MSCs, reported in 2016, used in vivo optical imaging to track MSC biodistribution and flow cytometry to quantify MSCs.329
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells are recognized as effective therapeutic agents for antitumour applications. Given the similarities between CAR-T cells and MSCs in terms of therapeutic mechanism and cell properties, the model structure and system-specific parameters of the CAR-T-cell PK model can be applied to MSCs. PBPK models of CAR-T cells have been developed that incorporate various parameters, such as tissue volume, blood flow velocity, affinity of CAR-T cells for target cells, antigen abundance, and tumor volume.330 To accurately predict the biodistribution of CAR-T cells in vivo, the types of target cells and the expression of ligands on target cells in different disease stages, which could represent the specific properties of CAR-T cells, should be considered in the development and optimization of models.331 The target organ volume, microenvironment, and interaction between MSCs and other cells can all be considered important parameters or processes for PK models. Furthermore, the physical status of donors, tissue resources, passage number of MSCs, administration route, and dose of MSCs can all be recognized as critical covariates in models because of their unignorable influence on the biodistribution of MSCs.332 To maximize the therapeutic effects and minimize the adverse effects of MSCs, a PK model that has a superior ability to predict the biodistribution and number of MSCs in target organs is urgently needed.
Conclusions
MSC therapy, which has undergone significant progress over the past half-century, has emerged as an effective treatment for major chronic diseases and severe trauma repair in the field of regenerative medicine.27 Although the safety and therapeutic efficacy of MSC therapy have been extensively validated in numerous clinical trials worldwide, only a limited number of MSC products are commercially available in specific regions. This is largely attributed to the challenges associated with pharmacokinetics and the lack of clarity regarding MSC mechanisms, as well as the substantial individualized differences observed in clinical trials. In this review, we discuss MSC homing processes to different organs in vivo and the key regulatory factors involved. We also analyzed MSC fate and evaluated various in vivo tracing methods for detecting MSC homing, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, we have emphasized the close relationship between the pharmacokinetics of MSCs and their druggability. We have summarized current strategies and suggestions for enhancing the homing capabilities of transplanted MSCs.
MSC therapy products are not subject to conventional pharmacokinetic testing, which is primarily used for conventional drugs. The mode of action of MSCs operates through a “shotgun model” and “hit-and-run” (or “touch-and-go”) mechanism: (1) They exert regulatory effects on the body through multiple targets and mechanisms to maintain homeostasis within niches rather than through single-target and simple inhibitory actions9; (2) Many studies have shown their rapid migration to damaged tissue, where they are quickly cleared after stress-induced release of therapeutic molecules, but their therapeutic effects persist over a long period.12 However, there are still many unanswered questions. First, given the high heterogeneity of MSCs, future research should focus on homing studies for different indications to further standardize quality criteria and production processes, ensuring the consistency of MSC product batches. Second, most studies have not linked the fate of MSCs to persistence in vivo due to limitations in detection and labeling technologies. Combining multiple labeling methods and various imaging techniques will facilitate high-resolution imaging and quantitative spatiotemporal analysis of MSCs in target organs at the single-cell resolution level. Third, it is important to note that preclinical mouse models often do not fully replicate human diseases. Although MSCs exhibit very low immunogenicity, they can trigger varying levels of immune activation in both humans and animals. Additionally, the dosage of MSCs administered to mouse models differs significantly from that administered to clinical patients, which can affect treatment outcomes. Finally, screening response patients based on biomarkers to determine the biodistribution and biological mechanisms of MSCs before clinical application can enhance the efficacy of MSC therapies. On the other hand, combining MSCs with gene modification, click chemistry, and tissue engineering materials hold promise for enhancing the precise biodistribution of MSC therapies. This innovative approach has the potential to accelerate the clinical translation of MSCs and expand their application to new therapeutic frontiers, ultimately benefiting patients with a wide range of medical conditions.
References
Hass, R. et al. Different populations and sources of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSC): a comparison of adult and neonatal tissue-derived MSC. Cell Commun. Signal 9, 12 (2011).
Zhou, T. et al. Challenges and advances in clinical applications of mesenchymal stromal cells. J. Hematol. Oncol. 14, 24 (2021).
Han, Y. et al. The secretion profile of mesenchymal stem cells and potential applications in treating human diseases. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 7, 92 (2022).
Kimbrel, E. A. & Lanza, R. Next-generation stem cells - ushering in a new era of cell-based therapies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 19, 463–479 (2020).
Zhuang, W. Z. et al. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapy: mechanism, systemic safety and biodistribution for precision clinical applications. J. Biomed. Sci. 28, 28 (2021).
Hao, H. et al. Insights into drug discovery from natural medicines using reverse pharmacokinetics. Trends Pharm. Sci. 35, 168–177 (2014).
Nitzsche, F. et al. Concise review: MSC adhesion cascade-insights into homing and transendothelial migration. Stem Cells 35, 1446–1460 (2017).
Galleu, A. et al. Apoptosis in mesenchymal stromal cells induces in vivo recipient-mediated immunomodulation. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaam7828 (2017).
Song, N. et al. Mesenchymal stem cell immunomodulation: mechanisms and therapeutic potential. Trends Pharm. Sci. 41, 653–664 (2020).
Lin, R. Z. et al. Mitochondrial transfer mediates endothelial cell engraftment through mitophagy. Nature 629, 660–668 (2024).
Islam, M. N. et al. Mitochondrial transfer from bone-marrow-derived stromal cells to pulmonary alveoli protects against acute lung injury. Nat. Med. 18, 759–765 (2012).
Uccelli, A. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 8, 726–736 (2008).
Yu, S. et al. Enhancing mesenchymal stem cell survival and homing capability to improve cell engraftment efficacy for liver diseases. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 14, 235 (2023).
van Griensven, M. & Balmayor, E. R. Extracellular vesicles are key players in mesenchymal stem cells’ dual potential to regenerate and modulate the immune system. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 207, 115203 (2024).
Che Shaffi, S. et al. Unlocking the potential of extracellular vesicles as the next generation therapy: challenges and opportunities. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 21, 513–527 (2024).
Abdulmalek, O. et al. Therapeutic applications of stem cell-derived exosomes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 25, 3562 (2024).
Li, X. et al. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cell secretome promotes skin regeneration and rejuvenation: from mechanism to therapeutics. Cell Prolif. 57, e13586 (2024).
Galipeau, J. & Sensébé, L. Mesenchymal stromal cells: clinical challenges and therapeutic opportunities. Cell Stem Cell 22, 824–833 (2018).
Kabat, M. et al. Trends in mesenchymal stem cell clinical trials 2004-2018: Is efficacy optimal in a narrow dose range. Stem Cells Transl. Med 9, 17–27 (2020).
Wang, Y. et al. Plasticity of mesenchymal stem cells in immunomodulation: pathological and therapeutic implications. Nat. Immunol. 15, 1009–1016 (2014).
L, P. K. et al. The mesenchymal stem cell secretome: a new paradigm towards cell-free therapeutic mode in regenerative medicine. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 46, 1–9 (2019).
Watanabe, Y. et al. The development of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in the present, and the perspective of cell-free therapy in the future. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 27, 70–80 (2021).
Varderidou-Minasian, S. & Lorenowicz, M. J. Mesenchymal stromal/stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in tissue repair: challenges and opportunities. Theranostics 10, 5979–5997 (2020).
Antunes, M. A. et al. Effects of different mesenchymal stromal cell sources and delivery routes in experimental emphysema. Respir. Res. 15, 118 (2014).
Tan, F. et al. Clinical applications of stem cell-derived exosomes. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 9, 17 (2024).
Moll, G. et al. Intravascular mesenchymal stromal/stem cell therapy product diversification: time for new clinical guidelines. Trends Mol. Med. 25, 149–163 (2019).
Levy, O. et al. Shattering barriers toward clinically meaningful MSC therapies. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba6884 (2020).
Kanelidis, A. J. et al. Route of delivery modulates the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of preclinical studies and clinical trials. Circ. Res. 120, 1139–1150 (2017).
Burdick, J. A. et al. To serve and protect: hydrogels to improve stem cell-based therapies. Cell Stem Cell 18, 13–15 (2016).
Hofmann, M. et al. Monitoring of bone marrow cell homing into the infarcted human myocardium. Circulation 111, 2198–2202 (2005).
Madl, C. M. et al. Bioengineering strategies to accelerate stem cell therapeutics. Nature 557, 335–342 (2018).
Karp, J. M. & Leng Teo, G. S. Mesenchymal stem cell homing: the devil is in the details. Cell Stem Cell 4, 206–216 (2009).
Scarfe, L. et al. Non-invasive imaging reveals conditions that impact distribution and persistence of cells after in vivo administration. Stem Cell Res Ther. 9, 332 (2018).
Grégoire, C. et al. Review article: mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment. Pharm. Ther. 45, 205–221 (2017).
Voswinkel, J. et al. Gastro-intestinal autoimmunity: preclinical experiences and successful therapy of fistulizing bowel diseases and gut Graft versus host disease by mesenchymal stromal cells. Immunol. Res. 56, 241–248 (2013).
Devine, S. M. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells distribute to a wide range of tissues following systemic infusion into nonhuman primates. Blood 101, 2999–3001 (2003).
Sackstein, R. The lymphocyte homing receptors: gatekeepers of the multistep paradigm. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 12, 444–450 (2005).
Ullah, M. et al. Mesenchymal stromal cell homing: mechanisms and strategies for improvement. iScience 15, 421–438 (2019).
Rüster, B. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells display coordinated rolling and adhesion behavior on endothelial cells. Blood 108, 3938–3944 (2006).
Aldridge, V. et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells are recruited to injured liver in a β1-integrin and CD44 dependent manner. Hepatology 56, 1063–1073 (2012).
Sackstein, R. et al. Ex vivo glycan engineering of CD44 programs human multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell trafficking to bone. Nat. Med. 14, 181–187 (2008).
Geng, J. G. et al. P-selectin cell adhesion molecule in inflammation, thrombosis, cancer growth and metastasis. Curr. Med. Chem. 11, 2153–2160 (2004).
Suila, H. et al. Human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells display a novel interaction between P-selectin and galectin-1. Scand. J. Immunol. 80, 12–21 (2014).
Olivares-Navarrete, R. et al. Role of integrin subunits in mesenchymal stem cell differentiation and osteoblast maturation on graphitic carbon-coated microstructured surfaces. Biomaterials 51, 69–79 (2015).
Semon, J. A. et al. Integrin expression and integrin-mediated adhesion in vitro of human multipotent stromal cells (MSCs) to endothelial cells from various blood vessels. Cell Tissue Res. 341, 147–158 (2010).
Brooke, G. et al. Molecular trafficking mechanisms of multipotent mesenchymal stem cells derived from human bone marrow and placenta. Stem Cells Dev. 17, 929–940 (2008).
Moursi, A. M. et al. Interactions between integrin receptors and fibronectin are required for calvarial osteoblast differentiation in vitro. J. Cell Sci. 110, 2187–2196 (1997).
Cui, L. L. et al. Integrin α4 overexpression on rat mesenchymal stem cells enhances transmigration and reduces cerebral embolism after intracarotid injection. Stroke 48, 2895–2900 (2017).
Kumar, S. & Ponnazhagan, S. Bone homing of mesenchymal stem cells by ectopic alpha 4 integrin expression. FASEB J. 21, 3917–3927 (2007).
Zlotnik, A. et al. Homeostatic chemokine receptors and organ-specific metastasis. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 11, 597–606 (2011).
Moser, B. et al. Chemokines: multiple levels of leukocyte migration control. Trends Immunol. 25, 75–84 (2004).
Cuesta-Gomez, N. et al. Chemokines and their receptors: predictors of the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stromal cells. J. Transl. Med. 19, 156 (2021).
Zlotnik, A. & Yoshie, O. The chemokine superfamily revisited. Immunity 36, 705–716 (2012).
Springer, T. A. Traffic signals for lymphocyte recirculation and leukocyte emigration: the multistep paradigm. Cell 76, 301–314 (1994).
Constantin, G. et al. Chemokines trigger immediate beta2 integrin affinity and mobility changes: differential regulation and roles in lymphocyte arrest under flow. Immunity 13, 759–769 (2000).
Honczarenko, M. et al. Human bone marrow stromal cells express a distinct set of biologically functional chemokine receptors. Stem Cells 24, 1030–1041 (2006).
Von Lüttichau, I. et al. Human adult CD34- progenitor cells functionally express the chemokine receptors CCR1, CCR4, CCR7, CXCR5, and CCR10 but not CXCR4. Stem Cells Dev. 14, 329–336 (2005).
Sordi, V. et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells express a restricted set of functionally active chemokine receptors capable of promoting migration to pancreatic islets. Blood 106, 419–427 (2005).
Hassanshahi, G. et al. Involvement of various chemokine/chemokine receptor axes in trafficking and oriented locomotion of mesenchymal stem cells in multiple sclerosis patients. Cytokine 148, 155706 (2021).
Cornelissen, A. S. et al. Organ-specific migration of mesenchymal stromal cells: who, when, where and why. Immunol. Lett. 168, 159–169 (2015).
Rombouts, W. J. & Ploemacher, R. E. Primary murine MSC show highly efficient homing to the bone marrow but lose homing ability following culture. Leukemia 17, 160–170 (2003).
Wang, M. et al. Calcium phosphate altered the cytokine secretion of macrophages and influenced the homing of mesenchymal stem cells. J. Mater. Chem. B 6, 4765–4774 (2018).
Huang, J. et al. Genetic modification of mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing CCR1 increases cell viability, migration, engraftment, and capillary density in the injured myocardium. Circ. Res. 106, 1753–1762 (2010).
Jiang, H. H. et al. Combined treatment with CCR1-overexpressing mesenchymal stem cells and CCL7 enhances engraftment and promotes the recovery of simulated birth injury-induced stress urinary incontinence in rats. Front. Surg. 7, 40 (2020).
Girard, S. D. et al. From blood to lesioned brain: an in vitro study on migration mechanisms of human nasal olfactory stem cells. Stem Cells Int. 2017, 1478606 (2017).
Mossanen, J. C. et al. Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2-positive monocytes aggravate the early phase of acetaminophen-induced acute liver injury. Hepatology 64, 1667–1682 (2016).
Kuang, S. et al. CCR2-engineered mesenchymal stromal cells accelerate diabetic wound healing by restoring immunological homeostasis. Biomaterials 275, 120963 (2021).
Xu, R. et al. CCR2-overexpressing mesenchymal stem cells targeting damaged liver enhance recovery of acute liver failure. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 13, 55 (2022).
Huang, Y. et al. Targeted homing of CCR2-overexpressing mesenchymal stromal cells to ischemic brain enhances post-stroke recovery partially through PRDX4-mediated blood-brain barrier preservation. Theranostics 8, 5929–5944 (2018).
Pavon, L. F. et al. Tropism of mesenchymal stem cell toward CD133(+) stem cell of glioblastoma in vitro and promote tumor proliferation in vivo. Stem Cell Res Ther. 9, 310 (2018).
Schenk, S. et al. Monocyte chemotactic protein-3 is a myocardial mesenchymal stem cell homing factor. Stem Cells 25, 245–251 (2007).
He, X. et al. Spontaneous apoptosis of cells in therapeutic stem cell preparation exert immunomodulatory effects through release of phosphatidylserine. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 6, 270 (2021).
Wang, X. et al. KSHV enhances mesenchymal stem cell homing and promotes KS-like pathogenesis. Virology 549, 5–12 (2020).
Schäfer, R. et al. Modulating endothelial adhesion and migration impacts stem cell therapies efficacy. EBioMedicine 60, 102987 (2020).
Dhoke, N. R. et al. Cxcr6-based mesenchymal stem cell gene therapy potentiates skin regeneration in murine diabetic wounds. Mol. Ther. 28, 1314–1326 (2020).
Chamberlain, G. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells exhibit firm adhesion, crawling, spreading and transmigration across aortic endothelial cells: effects of chemokines and shear. PLoS One 6, e25663 (2011).
Li, H. et al. CCR7 guides migration of mesenchymal stem cell to secondary lymphoid organs: a novel approach to separate GvHD from GvL effect. Stem Cells 32, 1890–1903 (2014).
Sasaki, M. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells are recruited into wounded skin and contribute to wound repair by transdifferentiation into multiple skin cell type. J. Immunol. 180, 2581–2587 (2008).
Murphy, P. M. et al. International union of pharmacology. XXII. Nomenclature for chemokine receptors. Pharm. Rev. 52, 145–176 (2000).
Ullah, M. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells and their chondrogenic differentiated and dedifferentiated progeny express chemokine receptor CCR9 and chemotactically migrate toward CCL25 or serum. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 4, 99 (2013).
Hocking, A. M. The role of chemokines in mesenchymal stem cell homing to wounds. Adv. Wound Care 4, 623–630 (2015).
Alexeev, V. et al. Analysis of chemotactic molecules in bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and the skin: Ccl27-Ccr10 axis as a basis for targeting to cutaneous tissues. Cytotherapy 15, 171–184.e1 (2013).
Ringe, J. et al. Towards in situ tissue repair: human mesenchymal stem cells express chemokine receptors CXCR1, CXCR2 and CCR2, and migrate upon stimulation with CXCL8 but not CCL2. J. Cell Biochem. 101, 135–146 (2007).
Bayo, J. et al. IL-8, GRO and MCP-1 produced by hepatocellular carcinoma microenvironment determine the migratory capacity of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells without affecting tumor aggressiveness. Oncotarget 8, 80235–80248 (2017).
Kim, S. M. et al. CXC chemokine receptor 1 enhances the ability of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells to migrate toward gliomas. Biochem Biophys. Res. Commun. 407, 741–746 (2011).
Kobayashi, Y. The role of chemokines in neutrophil biology. Front. Biosci. 13, 2400–2407 (2008).
Li, Q. et al. mRNA-engineered mesenchymal stromal cells expressing CXCR2 enhances cell migration and improves recovery in IBD. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 26, 222–236 (2021).
Shen, Z. et al. Genetic modification to induce CXCR2 overexpression in mesenchymal stem cells enhances treatment benefits in radiation-induced oral mucositis. Cell Death Dis. 9, 229 (2018).
Kalwitz, G. et al. Gene expression profile of adult human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells stimulated by the chemokine CXCL7. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 41, 649–658 (2009).
Hajinejad, M. et al. Resveratrol pretreatment enhanced homing of SDF-1α-preconditioned bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in a rat model of liver cirrhosis. J. Cell Biochem. 119, 2939–2950 (2018).
He, X. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells inhibited the apoptosis of alveolar epithelial cells caused by ARDS through CXCL12/CXCR4 axis. Bioengineered 13, 9060–9070 (2022).
Ling, L. et al. Important role of the SDF-1/CXCR4 axis in the homing of systemically transplanted human amnion-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hAD-MSCs) to ovaries in rats with chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). Stem Cell Res. Ther. 13, 79 (2022).
Naderi-Meshkin, H. et al. Strategies to improve homing of mesenchymal stem cells for greater efficacy in stem cell therapy. Cell Biol. Int. 39, 23–34 (2015).
Meng, S. S. et al. LincRNA-p21 promotes mesenchymal stem cell migration capacity and survival through hypoxic preconditioning. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 9, 280 (2018).
Liu, X. et al. SDF-1/CXCR4 axis modulates bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell apoptosis, migration and cytokine secretion. Protein Cell 2, 845–854 (2011).
Pesaresi, M. et al. The chemokine receptors Ccr5 and Cxcr6 enhance migration of mesenchymal stem cells into the degenerating retina. Mol. Ther. 29, 804–821 (2021).
Zhang, X. et al. CXCR5-overexpressing mesenchymal stromal cells exhibit enhanced homing and can decrease contact hypersensitivity. Mol. Ther. 25, 1434–1447 (2017).
Hung, S. C. et al. Short-term exposure of multipotent stromal cells to low oxygen increases their expression of CX3CR1 and CXCR4 and their engraftment in vivo. PLoS One 2, e416 (2007).
Fu, Y. et al. Dual-functionalized MSCs that express CX3CR1 and IL-25 exhibit enhanced therapeutic effects on inflammatory bowel disease. Mol. Ther. 28, 1214–1228 (2020).
Kalluri, R. Basement membranes: structure, assembly and role in tumour angiogenesis. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 422–433 (2003).
Steingen, C. et al. Characterization of key mechanisms in transmigration and invasion of mesenchymal stem cells. J. Mol. Cell Cardiol. 44, 1072–1084 (2008).
Visse, R. & Nagase, H. Matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases: structure, function, and biochemistry. Circ. Res. 92, 827–839 (2003).
de Almeida, L. et al. Matrix metalloproteinases: from molecular mechanisms to physiology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. Pharm. Rev. 74, 712–768 (2022).
De Becker, A. et al. Migration of culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells through bone marrow endothelium is regulated by matrix metalloproteinase-2 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-3. Haematologica 92, 440–449 (2007).
Kim, I. et al. Discovery of chemerin as the new chemoattractant of human mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Biosci. 11, 120 (2021).
Lu, C. et al. MT1-MMP controls human mesenchymal stem cell trafficking and differentiation. Blood 115, 221–229 (2010).
Sun, X. et al. PDGF-BB-induced MT1-MMP expression regulates proliferation and invasion of mesenchymal stem cells in 3-dimensional collagen via MEK/ERK1/2 and PI3K/AKT signaling. Cell Signal 25, 1279–1287 (2013).
Murphy, G. Tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases. Genome Biol. 12, 233 (2011).
Ries, C. et al. MMP-2, MT1-MMP, and TIMP-2 are essential for the invasive capacity of human mesenchymal stem cells: differential regulation by inflammatory cytokines. Blood 109, 4055–4063 (2007).
Zanotti, L. et al. Mouse mesenchymal stem cells inhibit high endothelial cell activation and lymphocyte homing to lymph nodes by releasing TIMP-1. Leukemia 30, 1143–1154 (2016).
Menge, T. et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells inhibit endothelial proliferation and angiogenesis via cell-cell contact through modulation of the VE-Cadherin/β-catenin signaling pathway. Stem Cells Dev. 22, 148–157 (2013).
Tondreau, T. et al. In vitro study of matrix metalloproteinase/tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase production by mesenchymal stromal cells in response to inflammatory cytokines: the role of their migration in injured tissues. Cytotherapy 11, 559–569 (2009).
Teo, G. S. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells transmigrate between and directly through tumor necrosis factor-α-activated endothelial cells via both leukocyte-like and novel mechanisms. Stem Cells 30, 2472–2486 (2012).
Abdi, R. et al. HCELL expression on murine MSC licenses pancreatotropism and confers durable reversal of autoimmune diabetes in NOD mice. Stem Cells 33, 1523–1531 (2015).
Ko, I. K. et al. Targeting mesenchymal stem cells to activated endothelial cells. Biomaterials 30, 3702–3710 (2009).
Ko, I. K. et al. Targeting improves MSC treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Mol. Ther. 18, 1365–1372 (2010).
Cheng, H. et al. Stem cell membrane engineering for cell rolling using peptide conjugation and tuning of cell-selectin interaction kinetics. Biomaterials 33, 5004–5012 (2012).
Gundlach, C. W. 4th et al. Synthesis and evaluation of an anti-MLC1 × anti-CD90 bispecific antibody for targeting and retaining bone-marrow-derived multipotent stromal cells in infarcted myocardium. Bioconjug. Chem. 22, 1706–1714 (2011).
Tsai, L. K. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells primed with valproate and lithium robustly migrate to infarcted regions and facilitate recovery in a stroke model. Stroke 42, 2932–2939 (2011).
Mao, A. S. et al. Programmable microencapsulation for enhanced mesenchymal stem cell persistence and immunomodulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15392–15397 (2019).
Yanai, A. et al. Focused magnetic stem cell targeting to the retina using superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Cell Transpl. 21, 1137–1148 (2012).
Ding, D. C. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Transpl. 20, 5–14 (2011).
Bajetto, A. et al. Cross-talk between mesenchymal and glioblastoma stem cells: communication beyond controversies. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 9, 1310–1330 (2020).
Acosta, S. A. et al. Intravenous bone marrow stem cell grafts preferentially migrate to spleen and abrogate chronic inflammation in stroke. Stroke 46, 2616–2627 (2015).
Andrzejewska, A. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells injected into carotid artery to target focal brain injury home to perivascular space. Theranostics 10, 6615–6628 (2020).
Cerri, S. et al. Intracarotid infusion of mesenchymal stem cells in an animal model of Parkinson’s disease, focusing on cell distribution and neuroprotective and behavioral effects. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 4, 1073–1085 (2015).
Yu, Q. et al. SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis mediates the migration of mesenchymal stem cells to the hypoxic-ischemic brain lesion in a rat model. Cell J. 16, 440–447 (2015).
Wang, Z. et al. Engineered mesenchymal stem cells with enhanced tropism and paracrine secretion of cytokines and growth factors to treat traumatic brain injury. Stem Cells 33, 456–467 (2015).
Chen, H. & Zhou, L. Treatment of ischemic stroke with modified mesenchymal stem cells. Int. J. Med. Sci. 19, 1155–1162 (2022).
Bang, O. Y. et al. The effect of CXCR4 overexpression on mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in ischemic stroke. Cell Med. 4, 65–76 (2012).
Shahror, R. A. et al. Enhanced homing of mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing fibroblast growth factor 21 to injury site in a mouse model of traumatic brain injury. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 2624 (2019).
Hou, Y. et al. IL-8 enhances the angiogenic potential of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells by increasing vascular endothelial growth factor. Cell Biol. Int. 38, 1050–1059 (2014).
Andrzejewska, A. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells for neurological disorders. Adv. Sci. 8, 2002944 (2021).
Ahn, Y. J. et al. Biodistribution of poly clustered superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle labeled mesenchymal stem cells in aminoglycoside-induced ototoxic mouse model. Biomed. Eng. Lett. 11, 39–53 (2021).
da Costa Gonçalves, F. & Paz, A. H. Cell membrane and bioactive factors derived from mesenchymal stromal cells: cell-free based therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases. World J. Stem Cells 11, 618–633 (2019).
He, X. W. et al. Systemic infusion of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for treatment of experimental colitis in mice. Dig. Dis. Sci. 57, 3136–3144 (2012).
Lopez-Santalla, M. et al. Biodistribution and efficacy of human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells following intranodal administration in experimental colitis. Front. Immunol. 8, 638 (2017).
Zheng, X. B. et al. Bone marrow-derived CXCR4-overexpressing MSCs display increased homing to intestine and ameliorate colitis-associated tumorigenesis in mice. Gastroenterol. Rep. 7, 127–138 (2019).
Chen, Q. et al. Anti-VCAM 1 antibody-coated mesenchymal stromal cells attenuate experimental colitis via immunomodulation. Med. Sci. Monit. 25, 4457–4468 (2019).
Fan, H. et al. Pre-treatment with IL-1β enhances the efficacy of MSC transplantation in DSS-induced colitis. Cell Mol. Immunol. 9, 473–481 (2012).
Hidalgo-Garcia, L. et al. Can a conversation between mesenchymal stromal cells and macrophages solve the crisis in the inflamed intestine. Front. Pharm. 9, 179 (2018).
Zhao, M. L. et al. H19 overexpression improved efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in ulcerative colitis by modulating the miR-141/ICAM-1 and miR-139/CXCR4 axes. Dis. Markers 2021, 7107705 (2021).
Qiu, Y. et al. TLR3 preconditioning enhances the therapeutic efficacy of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in TNBS-induced colitis via the TLR3-Jagged-1-Notch-1 pathway. Mucosal Immunol. 10, 727–742 (2017).
Ma, J. et al. Time course of myocardial stromal cell-derived factor 1 expression and beneficial effects of intravenously administered bone marrow stem cells in rats with experimental myocardial infarction. Basic Res. Cardiol. 100, 217–223 (2005).
Hale, S. L. et al. Mesenchymal stem cell administration at coronary artery reperfusion in the rat by two delivery routes: a quantitative assessment. Life Sci. 83, 511–515 (2008).
Zhang, S. J. et al. Effect of TGF-β1/SDF-1/CXCR4 signal on BM-MSCs homing in rat heart of ischemia/perfusion injury. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharm. Sci. 20, 899–905 (2016).
Unzek, S. et al. SDF-1 recruits cardiac stem cell-like cells that depolarize in vivo. Cell Transpl. 16, 879–886 (2007).
Schmidt-Lucke, C. et al. Cardiac migration of endogenous mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with inflammatory cardiomyopathy. Mediators Inflamm. 2015, 308185 (2015).
Wu, Y. & Zhao, R. C. The role of chemokines in mesenchymal stem cell homing to myocardium. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 8, 243–250 (2012).
He, H. et al. Overexpression of protein kinase C ɛ improves retention and survival of transplanted mesenchymal stem cells in rat acute myocardial infarction. Cell Death Dis. 7, e2056 (2016).
Kean, T. J. et al. Development of a peptide-targeted, myocardial ischemia-homing, mesenchymal stem cell. J. Drug Target 20, 23–32 (2012).
Cheng, K. et al. Transplantation of bone marrow-derived MSCs improves cisplatinum-induced renal injury through paracrine mechanisms. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 94, 466–473 (2013).
Tögel, F. et al. Bioluminescence imaging to monitor the in vivo distribution of administered mesenchymal stem cells in acute kidney injury. Am. J. Physiol. Ren. Physiol. 295, F315–F321 (2008).
Taylor, A. et al. Multimodal imaging techniques show differences in homing capacity between mesenchymal stromal cells and macrophages in mouse renal injury models. Mol. Imaging Biol. 22, 904–913 (2020).
Luk, F. et al. Inactivated mesenchymal stem cells maintain immunomodulatory capacity. Stem Cells Dev. 25, 1342–1354 (2016).
Hauger, O. et al. MR evaluation of the glomerular homing of magnetically labeled mesenchymal stem cells in a rat model of nephropathy. Radiology 238, 200–210 (2006).
Li, W. et al. An update for mesenchymal stem cell therapy in lupus nephritis. Kidney Dis. 7, 79–89 (2021).
Liu, N. et al. Migration of CXCR4 gene-modified bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells to the acute injured kidney. J. Cell Biochem. 114, 2677–2689 (2013).
Zou, X. et al. Targeting murine mesenchymal stem cells to kidney injury molecule-1 improves their therapeutic efficacy in chronic ischemic kidney injury. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 7, 394–403 (2018).
Xinaris, C. et al. A novel strategy to enhance mesenchymal stem cell migration capacity and promote tissue repair in an injury-specific fashion. Cell Transpl. 22, 423–436 (2013).
Si, X. et al. Transforming growth factor-β1 promotes homing of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in renal ischemia-reperfusion injury. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 8, 12368–12378 (2015).
Zhou, S. et al. Bone mesenchymal stem cells pretreated with erythropoietin enhance the effect to ameliorate cyclosporine A-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. J. Cell Biochem. 119, 8220–8232 (2018).
Burks, S. R. et al. Mesenchymal stromal cell potency to treat acute kidney injury increased by ultrasound-activated interferon-γ/interleukin-10 axis. J. Cell Mol. Med. 22, 6015–6025 (2018).
Ullah, M. et al. Reversing acute kidney injury using pulsed focused ultrasound and MSC therapy: a role for HSP-Mediated PI3K/AKT signaling. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 17, 683–694 (2020).
Park, M. et al. Tonsil-derived mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate CCl4-induced liver fibrosis in mice via autophagy activation. Sci. Rep. 5, 8616 (2015).
Milosavljevic, N. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells attenuate liver fibrosis by suppressing Th17 cells—an experimental study. Transpl. Int. 31, 102–115 (2018).
Ye, Z. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing hepatocyte nuclear factor-4 alpha alleviate liver injury by modulating anti-inflammatory functions in mice. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 10, 149 (2019).
Cao, Y. et al. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for liver fibrosis/cirrhosis. Ann. Transl. Med. 8, 562 (2020).
Ahmed, S. K. et al. Role of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of CCL4 induced liver fibrosis in albino rats: a histological and immunohistochemical study. Int. J. Stem Cells 7, 87–97 (2014).
Zheng, J. et al. Preconditioning of umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells by rapamycin increases cell migration and ameliorates liver ischaemia/reperfusion injury in mice via the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis. Cell Prolif. 52, e12546 (2019).
Hu, C. et al. Genetic modification by overexpression of target gene in mesenchymal stromal cell for treating liver diseases. J. Mol. Med. 99, 179–192 (2021).
Hu, C. et al. Pre-treatments enhance the therapeutic effects of mesenchymal stem cells in liver diseases. J. Cell Mol. Med. 24, 40–49 (2020).
Hu, C. & Li, L. The immunoregulation of mesenchymal stem cells plays a critical role in improving the prognosis of liver transplantation. J. Transl. Med. 17, 412 (2019).
Nasir, G. A. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells and Interleukin-6 attenuate liver fibrosis in mice. J. Transl. Med. 11, 78 (2013).
Hu, C. et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells promote liver regeneration through regulation of immune cells. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 16, 893–903 (2020).
Ali, G. et al. Nitric oxide augments mesenchymal stem cell ability to repair liver fibrosis. J. Transl. Med. 10, 75 (2012).
Al-Dhamin, Z. et al. Therapeutic efficiency of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for liver fibrosis: a systematic review of in vivo studies. World J. Gastroenterol. 26, 7444–7469 (2020).
Xu, J. et al. Prevention of endotoxin-induced systemic response by bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 293, L131–L141 (2007).
Jiang, X. et al. Intravenous delivery of adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells attenuates acute radiation-induced lung injury in rats. Cytotherapy 17, 560–570 (2015).
Reddy, M. et al. Human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells attenuate early stage of bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis: comparison with pirfenidone. Int. J. Stem Cells 9, 192–206 (2016).
Li, L. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells with downregulated Hippo signaling attenuate lung injury in mice with lipopolysaccharide‑induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Int. J. Mol. Med. 43, 1241–1252 (2019).
Wang, K. et al. Vimentin-Rab7a pathway mediates the migration of MSCs and lead to therapeutic effects on ARDS. Stem Cells Int. 2021, 9992381 (2021).
Han, J. et al. E-Prostanoid 2 receptor overexpression promotes mesenchymal stem cell attenuated lung injury. Hum. Gene Ther. 27, 621–630 (2016).
Zhao, F. et al. Pretreatment with G-CSF could enhance the antifibrotic effect of BM-MSCs on pulmonary fibrosis. Stem Cells Int. 2019, 1726743 (2019).
Wang, H. et al. Hepatocyte growth factor gene-modified mesenchymal stem cells reduce radiation-induced lung injury. Hum. Gene Ther. 24, 343–353 (2013).
Inokuma, D. et al. CTACK/CCL27 accelerates skin regeneration via accumulation of bone marrow-derived keratinocytes. Stem Cells 24, 2810–2816 (2006).
Maeda, A. Recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells to damaged sites by plant-derived components. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 8, 437 (2020).
Ma, T. et al. Interleukin 17 (il-17)-induced mesenchymal stem cells prolong the survival of allogeneic skin grafts. Ann. Transpl. 23, 615–621 (2018).
Wu, M. et al. JAM-A promotes wound healing by enhancing both homing and secretory activities of mesenchymal stem cells. Clin. Sci. 129, 575–588 (2015).
Ling, L. et al. Human amnion-derived mesenchymal stem cell (hAD-MSC) transplantation improves ovarian function in rats with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) at least partly through a paracrine mechanism. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 10, 46 (2019).
Feng, X. et al. Effects of human amnion-derived mesenchymal stem cell (hAD-MSC) transplantation in situ on primary ovarian insufficiency in SD rats. Reprod. Sci. 27, 1502–1512 (2020).
Corradetti, B. et al. Hyaluronic acid coatings as a simple and efficient approach to improve MSC homing toward the site of inflammation. Sci. Rep. 7, 7991 (2017).
Layek, B. et al. Glycoengineered mesenchymal stem cells as an enabling platform for two-step targeting of solid tumors. Biomaterials 88, 97–109 (2016).
Gholamrezanezhad, A. et al. In vivo tracking of 111In-oxine labeled mesenchymal stem cells following infusion in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Nucl. Med. Biol. 38, 961–967 (2011).
de Witte, S. et al. Immunomodulation by therapeutic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) is triggered through phagocytosis of MSC by monocytic Cells. Stem Cells 36, 602–615 (2018).
Amadeo, F. et al. Firefly luciferase offers superior performance to AkaLuc for tracking the fate of administered cell therapies. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 49, 796–808 (2022).
Zangi, L. et al. Direct imaging of immune rejection and memory induction by allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells. Stem Cells 27, 2865–2874 (2009).
Carneiro, B. A. & El-Deiry, W. S. Targeting apoptosis in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 17, 395–417 (2020).
Pang, S. et al. Mesenchymal stromal cell apoptosis is required for their therapeutic function. Nat. Commun. 12, 6495 (2021).
Li, X. et al. IFNγ and TNFα synergistically induce apoptosis of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells via the induction of nitric oxide. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 10, 18 (2019).
Gu, Y. et al. The deubiquitinating enzyme UCHL1 negatively regulates the immunosuppressive capacity and survival of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Cell Death Dis. 9, 459 (2018).
Zhang, F. et al. Nicorandil protects mesenchymal stem cells against hypoxia and serum deprivation-induced apoptosis. Int. J. Mol. Med. 36, 415–423 (2015).
Hou, M. et al. C1q tumor necrosis factor-related protein-3 protects mesenchymal stem cells against hypoxia- and serum deprivation-induced apoptosis through the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway. Int. J. Mol. Med. 33, 97–104 (2014).
Si, H. et al. Overexpression of adrenomedullin protects mesenchymal stem cells against hypoxia and serum deprivation‑induced apoptosis via the Akt/GSK3β and Bcl‑2 signaling pathways. Int. J. Mol. Med. 41, 3342–3352 (2018).
Zhang, Z. et al. Asprosin improves the survival of mesenchymal stromal cells in myocardial infarction by inhibiting apoptosis via the activated ERK1/2-SOD2 pathway. Life Sci. 231, 116554 (2019).
Wang, Y. et al. miRNA-98-5p targeting IGF2BP1 induces mesenchymal stem cell apoptosis by modulating PI3K/Akt and p53 in immune thrombocytopenia. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 20, 764–776 (2020).
Xu, J. et al. High-density lipoprotein protects mesenchymal stem cells from oxidative stress-induced apoptosis via activation of the PI3K/Akt pathway and suppression of reactive oxygen species. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13, 17104–17120 (2012).
Zhang, Q. et al. Dissecting molecular mechanisms underlying H(2)O(2)-induced apoptosis of mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell: role of Mst1 inhibition. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 11, 526 (2020).
Zhang, F. et al. AT1R-mediated apoptosis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells is associated with mtROS production and mtDNA reduction. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2019, 4608165 (2019).
Ren, W. et al. High glucose mediates apoptosis and osteogenesis of MSCs via downregulation of AKT-Sirt1-TWIST. Mol. Biol. Rep. 49, 2723–2733 (2022).
Dregalla, R. C. et al. Red blood cells and their releases compromise bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem/stromal cell survival in vitro. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 12, 547 (2021).
Chen, X. D. et al. Autophagy in fate determination of mesenchymal stem cells and bone remodeling. World J. Stem Cells 12, 776–786 (2020).
Mizushima, N. & Komatsu, M. Autophagy: renovation of cells and tissues. Cell 147, 728–741 (2011).
Menshikov, M. et al. Autophagy, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation, and secretion. Biomedicines 9, 1178 (2021).
Dang, S. et al. Autophagy regulates the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Autophagy 10, 1301–1315 (2014).
Yang, M. et al. Knockdown of insulin-like growth factor 1 exerts a protective effect on hypoxic injury of aged BM-MSCs: role of autophagy. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 9, 284 (2018).
Lv, B. et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protects mesenchymal stem cells against oxygen-glucose deprivation-induced injury via autophagy induction and PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. Am. J. Transl. Res. 9, 2492–2499 (2017).
Zhang, Q. et al. Autophagy activation: a novel mechanism of atorvastatin to protect mesenchymal stem cells from hypoxia and serum deprivation via AMP-activated protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stem Cells Dev. 21, 1321–1332 (2012).
Regmi, S. et al. Enhanced viability and function of mesenchymal stromal cell spheroids is mediated via autophagy induction. Autophagy 17, 2991–3010 (2021).
Liao, W. et al. Therapeutic effect of human umbilical cord multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells in a rat model of stroke. Transplantation 87, 350–359 (2009).
Leong, W. K. et al. Human adult dental pulp stem cells enhance poststroke functional recovery through non-neural replacement mechanisms. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 1, 177–187 (2012).
Sacchetti, B. et al. No identical “mesenchymal stem cells” at different times and sites: human committed progenitors of distinct origin and differentiation potential are incorporated as adventitial cells in microvessels. Stem Cell Rep. 6, 897–913 (2016).
Li, Y. et al. IFT20 governs mesenchymal stem cell fate through positively regulating TGF-β-Smad2/3-Glut1 signaling mediated glucose metabolism. Redox Biol. 54, 102373 (2022).
Stöckl, S. et al. Sox9 modulates cell survival and adipogenic differentiation of multipotent adult rat mesenchymal stem cells. J. Cell Sci. 126, 2890–2902 (2013).
Liu, Y. et al. INTS7-ABCD3 interaction stimulates the proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells by suppressing oxidative stress. Front Physiol. 12, 758607 (2021).
Crane, J. L. et al. IGF-1 signaling is essential for differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells for peak bone mass. Bone Res. 1, 186–194 (2013).
Dixon, S. J. et al. Ferroptosis: an iron-dependent form of nonapoptotic cell death. Cell 149, 1060–1072 (2012).
Sang, M. et al. Mitochondrial membrane anchored photosensitive nano-device for lipid hydroperoxides burst and inducing ferroptosis to surmount therapy-resistant cancer. Theranostics 9, 6209–6223 (2019).
Sang, M. et al. BHQ-cyanine-based “off-on” long-circulating assembly as a ferroptosis amplifier for cancer treatment: a lipid-peroxidation burst device. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11, 42873–42884 (2019).
Liu, J. et al. The NSUN5-FTH1/FTL pathway mediates ferroptosis in bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Death Discov. 8, 99 (2022).
Xu, Y. et al. Tert-butyl hydroperoxide induces ferroptosis of bone mesenchymal stem cells by repressing the prominin2/BACH1/ROS axis. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 325, C1212–C1227 (2023).
Song, M. et al. N6 methyladenosine eraser FTO suppresses Staphylococcus aureus-induced ferroptosis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells to ameliorate osteomyelitis through regulating the MDM2/TLR4/SLC7A11 signaling pathway. Cell Biol. Int. 48, 450–460 (2024).
Chen, P. et al. Overexpression of PRDX2 in adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells enhances the therapeutic effect in a neurogenic erectile dysfunction rat model by inhibiting ferroptosis. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2023, 4952857 (2023).
Hu, G. et al. Suppressing mesenchymal stromal cell ferroptosis via targeting a metabolism-epigenetics axis corrects their poor retention and insufficient healing benefits in the injured liver milieu. Adv. Sci. 10, e2206439 (2023).
Li, M. et al. Melatonin inhibits the ferroptosis pathway in rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells by activating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling axis to attenuate steroid-induced osteoporosis. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2022, 8223737 (2022).
Zineldeen, D. H. et al. Cellular preconditioning and mesenchymal stem cell ferroptosis. World J. Stem Cells 16, 64–69 (2024).
Galipeau, J. Macrophages at the nexus of mesenchymal stromal cell potency: the emerging role of chemokine cooperativity. Stem Cells 39, 1145–1154 (2021).
Li, Y. & Lin, F. Mesenchymal stem cells are injured by complement after their contact with serum. Blood 120, 3436–3443 (2012).
Gavin, C. et al. The complement system is essential for the phagocytosis of mesenchymal stromal cells by monocytes. Front. Immunol. 10, 2249 (2019).
Braza, F. et al. Mesenchymal stem cells induce suppressive macrophages through phagocytosis in a mouse model of asthma. Stem Cells 34, 1836–1845 (2016).
Hasgur, S. et al. Splenic macrophage phagocytosis of intravenously infused mesenchymal stromal cells attenuates tumor localization. Cytotherapy 23, 411–422 (2021).
Fafián-Labora, J. A. et al. Effect of aging on behaviour of mesenchymal stem cells. World J. Stem Cells 11, 337–346 (2019).
Jung, Y. H. et al. EphB2 signaling-mediated Sirt3 expression reduces MSC senescence by maintaining mitochondrial ROS homeostasis. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 110, 368–380 (2017).
Yang, M. et al. Ascorbic acid inhibits senescence in mesenchymal stem cells through ROS and AKT/mTOR signaling. Cytotechnology 70, 1301–1313 (2018).
Zhang, D. et al. Coenzyme Q10 inhibits the aging of mesenchymal stem cells induced by D-galactose through Akt/mTOR signaling. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2015, 867293 (2015).
Hong, Y. et al. miR-155-5p inhibition rejuvenates aged mesenchymal stem cells and enhances cardioprotection following infarction. Aging Cell 19, e13128 (2020).
Li, X. et al. MiR-495 promotes senescence of mesenchymal stem cells by targeting Bmi-1. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 42, 780–796 (2017).
Zhang, H. et al. Apelin rejuvenates aged human mesenchymal stem cells by regulating autophagy and improves cardiac protection after infarction. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 9, 628463 (2021).
Liang, X. et al. Overexpression of ERBB4 rejuvenates aged mesenchymal stem cells and enhances angiogenesis via PI3K/AKT and MAPK/ERK pathways. FASEB J. 33, 4559–4570 (2019).
Kim, M. et al. CD26 inhibition potentiates the therapeutic effects of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells by delaying cellular senescence. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 9, 803645 (2021).
Al-Azab, M. et al. Indian Hedgehog regulates senescence in bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell through modulation of ROS/mTOR/4EBP1, p70S6K1/2 pathway. Aging 12, 5693–5715 (2020).
Chang, T. C. et al. 5-methoxytryptophan protects MSCs from stress-induced premature senescence by upregulating FoxO3a and mTOR. Sci. Rep. 7, 11133 (2017).
Elsied, M. A. et al. Walnut kernel oil and defatted extracts enhance mesenchymal stem cell stemness and delay senescence. Molecules 28, 6281 (2023).
Lee, J. Y. et al. GATA4-dependent regulation of the secretory phenotype via MCP-1 underlies lamin A-mediated human mesenchymal stem cell aging. Exp. Mol. Med. 50, 1–12 (2018).
Yang, J. et al. Optical and MRI multimodal tracing of stem cells in vivo. Mol. Imaging 2023, 4223485 (2023).
Salvadori, M. et al. Dissecting the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of MSCs to overcome limitations in their clinical translation. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 14, 1–15 (2019).
Xu, L. et al. Umbilical cord artery-derived perivascular stem cells for treatment of ovarian failure through CD146 signaling. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 7, 223 (2022).
Tappenbeck, N. et al. In vivo safety profile and biodistribution of GMP-manufactured human skin-derived ABCB5-positive mesenchymal stromal cells for use in clinical trials. Cytotherapy 21, 546–560 (2019).
Kim, S. M. et al. In vivo near-infrared imaging for the tracking of systemically delivered mesenchymal stem cells: tropism for brain tumors and biodistribution. Int. J. Nanomed. 11, 13–23 (2016).
Liang, Z. et al. Preclinical short-term and long-term safety of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Transpl. 32, 9636897231213271 (2023).
Wang, F. et al. Route of delivery influences biodistribution of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells following experimental bone marrow transplantation. J. Stem Cells Regen. Med. 11, 34–43 (2015).
Ye, D. et al. Optical imaging and high-accuracy quantification of intracellular iron contents. Small 17, e2005474 (2021).
Wang, H. et al. Magnetic sensor based on image processing for dynamically tracking magnetic moment of single magnetic mesenchymal stem cell. Biosens. Bioelectron. 169, 112593 (2020).
Kamiyama, Y. et al. Biodistribution studies for cell therapy products: current status and issues. Regen. Ther. 18, 202–216 (2021).
Yeh, H. W. et al. Red-shifted luciferase-luciferin pairs for enhanced bioluminescence imaging. Nat. Methods 14, 971–974 (2017).
Kundrotas, G. et al. Uptake and distribution of carboxylated quantum dots in human mesenchymal stem cells: cell growing density matters. J. Nanobiotechnol. 17, 39 (2019).