Review Article | Published:

New approaches for brain repair—from rescue to reprogramming

Naturevolume 557pages329334 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

The ability to repair or promote regeneration within the adult human brain has been envisioned for decades. Until recently, such efforts mainly involved delivery of growth factors and cell transplants designed to rescue or replace a specific population of neurons, and the results have largely been disappointing. New approaches using stem-cell-derived cell products and direct cell reprogramming have opened up the possibility of reconstructing neural circuits and achieving better repair. In this Review we briefly summarize the history of neural repair and then discuss these new therapeutic approaches, especially with respect to chronic neurodegenerative disorders.

Main

The mammalian central nervous system (CNS), unlike many other organs, has a limited capacity for self-repair, and the ability to overcome this limitation would transform how we could treat patients with a vast array of neurological disorders. The relative lack of neurogenesis, failure of axonal regeneration and non-permissive local environment in the adult CNS have been major—and literal—barriers to CNS repair. Nevertheless, in recent years it has become clear that much can be done in the mature CNS to foster innate regeneration.

Diseases or disorders of the CNS can be developmental, inherited or acquired and acute or chronic, and each presents a different set of challenges when developing repair strategies. Both acute damage and chronic neurodegenerative disorders are characterized by an inter-related macroglial and microglial/inflammatory reaction that involves changes in the extracellular matrix and/or alterations in the blood–brain barrier. Therefore, agents that improve this environment could be used to help to protect neurons from further damage and to promote circuit reformation and function. Such disease-modifying therapies—using, for example, trophic factors or cell transplants that release such factors—could in theory be used alone in the early stages of disease or combined with approaches designed to replace lost cells through cell transplantation, re-activation of endogenous neurogenesis or directed reprogramming in situ. In this Review, we discuss three main strategies for restoring function in the damaged or diseased CNS: (i) cell rescue using neurotrophic factors or cell-based approaches with putative-disease modifying effects; (ii) cell replacement therapies using transplants of exogenously derived and in vitro cultured cells; and (iii) cell replacement using endogenous neural precursor cells or strategies that involve the direct reprogramming of resident cells within the brain (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Strategies to repair the diseased brain.
Fig. 1

a, In the healthy brain, neurons project and form synapses with target neurons. Axons are supported by myelinating oligodendrocytes (not shown) and astrocytes, which form a syncytium that helps to protect neurons and maintain the blood–brain barrier (BBB). b, In disease states, such as those associated with neurodegenerative disorders, neurons become dysfunctional and die, and this is often accompanied by a glial reaction and a change in the ECM. Treatments to repair and restore the brain in such conditions could include: (i) rescuing cells using neurotrophic factors; (ii) cell transplants to replace lost cells or support those targeted by the disease process; (iii) recruitment of endogenous cells to replace those lost to the disease process; (iv) modification of the glial or inflammatory response; and/or (v) modification of the ECM.

Neurotrophic factors and disease modification

Enhancing the regenerative potential of the CNS in the face of a disease process can be done in two major ways. The first is to use approaches that restore and maintain the functional integrity of cells that are dysfunctional but not lost. This typically involves neurotrophic factors, some of which could be delivered using cell-based treatments. However, grafted cells could also be used to protect dysfunctional cells from ongoing insults such as metabolic stress. The second strategy is to minimize environmental barriers to repair, for example, by modifying the extracellular matrix and/or glial and immune reactions1,2.

Exercise-based therapies and cognitive training have been shown experimentally to promote endogenous neurogenesis and the local production of growth factors such as BDNF in the brain3. Whether these changes in experimental animals can translate into clinical benefits is largely unknown, but such interventions do have the potential to be used in combination with cell replacement or cell rescue therapies to optimize their reparative benefits.

The use of trophic factors has been explored for over 20 years, most notably in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease4,5 (Table 1). These initial studies suffered from major problems with delivery—the factors either failed to reach their neuronal targets or were rapidly inactivated. This led to a new round of trials using intraparenchymal delivery, most notably involving delivery of GDNF into the striata of patients with moderately advanced Parkinson’s disease. In two open-label studies, from two independent centres, this produced positive clinical responses, with post mortem and imaging data supporting its mode of action6,7,8,9. However, a subsequent double-blind placebo-controlled trial in 34 patients with Parkinson’s disease found that patients treated with GDNF showed no significant benefit over placebo-treated patients after 6 months10.

Table 1 Clinical trials using cell therapies or growth factors in patients with different neurodegenerative disorders

The reasons for the discordant results from these trials have been discussed extensively11, including possible placebo effects, although these would not explain the reported changes on PET imaging and at post mortem in patients treated with GDNF infusions. Furthermore, in the double-blind study, the group treated with saline did not improve, which also argues against any placebo effects and suggests that the trial failed because the active treatment did not work. This could have been due to the dose of GDNF and/or the way in which it was delivered, both of which differed from those used in the open-label studies. Given this uncertainty, further trials have been undertaken, including a double-blind approach with a new convection-enhanced delivery system that delivers GDNF more effectively. However, so far positive outcomes have not been achieved (https://scienceofparkinsons.com/2016/07/07/the-gdnf-trial-bristol-initial-results/), which suggests that the use of trophic factors alone may not work to treat such chronic neurodegenerative disorders. This is reinforced by parallel studies involving the delivery of other GDNF-like factors12, such as neurturin using an adeno-associated virus (AAV) delivery system (AAV-NTN). Here, the initial open-label studies showed efficacy but two subsequent double-blind placebo control studies (which differed in terms of where, and how, the AAV-NTN was delivered) failed to show efficacy13,14,15.

So, does this mean that repairing the brain with trophic factors is not a viable way forward? This is likely to be the case when the disease has advanced beyond a certain stage; once a patient has lost a critical number of cells or fibres, it is unrealistic to expect any growth factor to work, as there is nothing left for it to regenerate. Given that most neurodegenerative disorders present clinically when there has already been extensive cell or fibre loss, the early use of these agents will be required, and a post hoc analysis of some of the data from GDNF and AAV-NTN trials supports this view14,15. Moreover, the disease state may also interfere with growth factor function. For example, GDNF may not be able to act through its normal receptor in the presence of α-synuclein pathology in Parkinson’s disease because the pathology causes alterations in NURR1 signalling, which is needed for GDNF to produce its therapeutic effect16. Thus, it may be necessary to enhance levels of NURR1 before using GDNF to treat Parkinson’s disease for it to work efficiently, necessitating the adoption of combination approaches in any future trials. Finally, the optimal dose of any growth factor and how to best deliver it, including the volume of distribution needed to maximise its benefits, are still important questions. To date, GDNF and AAV-NTN have been delivered in ways that are insufficient to cover the structure being treated, and many of the failures seen clinically may relate to this. Post mortem data from both the original GDNF and subsequent AAV-NTN studies provide some support for this idea9,15.

Overcoming environmental hurdles to regeneration

Promoting neuronal survival and outgrowth is only one aspect of the problem in repairing the CNS. The other is enhancing the environment to support that regenerative process. This essentially distils down to modifying the glial elements and/or the extracellular matrix (ECM), both of which have been reported to produce signals that inhibit repair in the adult CNS1,2.

In terms of the glial cells, it has long been known that both astrocytes and oligodendrocytes express cell surface molecules that inhibit regenerating axons, although the expression and extent of these varies as a function of disease state (for example, being greater in patients with acute traumatic injuries than in chronic neurodegenerative disorders). The premise that glial cells produce inhibitory factors that can be blocked has led to early clinical trials, most notably using antibodies against the myelin-derived molecule NOGO in patients with spinal cord injury (http://www.sci-research.uzh.ch/en/research/ClinicalTrials/Nogo.html). However, the concept that glia are ‘bad’ for CNS repair has been challenged, in that the glial scar or glial reaction to injury or disease involves a heterogeneous collection of cells, which have a variety of functions. So, under some conditions the glial response may be beneficial for repair, possibly through effects on the inflammatory response to CNS disease1. Conversely under other circumstances, the opposite may occur. For example, it has recently been reported that microglia can induce astrocytes to become neurotoxic17. This concept of ‘gliopathy’ is not new and has been explored in models of ALS, where transplanted glial cells have been used to buffer extracellular glutamate and thus protect motor neurons18,19. Whether such an approach could be used to treat ALS clinically is unknown, but this work highlights the potential use of non-neuronal cell transplants to protect neurons in disease states.

More recently there has been interest in the ECM of the brain, and especially peri-neuronal nets (PNNs). PNNs are unevenly distributed across the brain and spinal cord and appear to have many functions during development and in the adult brain, including a role in neural plasticity. This role has been shown to extend to neurodegenerative disorders, most notably in transgenic models of Alzheimer’s disease, where removal of PNNs, either using chrondoitinase-ABC or genetically, has been shown to improve cognitive function without influencing the underlying disease process, possibly by enhancing neurite outgrowth and synaptic plasticty20,21. These results suggest that the use of this, or similar, agents may have benefits when combined with cell therapies in which synaptic integration with host cells may be restricted by local PNNs and/or a disease-driven increase in expression of inhibitory ECM molecules.

Replacement therapies using exogenous cells

When a neurodegenerative disorder or injury reaches the point at which a critical number of neurons has been lost, the replacement of these neurons is essential for functional improvement. Lost cells could be replaced by transplantation into single or multiple brain regions to partially recreate complex circuits either locally or over long distances.

For this to work, a number of important questions need to be addressed. First, what is the optimal cell type(s) to be transplanted and at what developmental stage should they be collected for grafting? Second, what CNS location(s) are needed for optimal recovery and fibre outgrowth? Third, how many cells are needed for effective repair, and finally, should other interventions be done either at the same time as grafting or after transplantation to enhance survival, integration or function of the cells?

Cell replacement therapy using human fetal allografts

Parkinson’s disease is one of the least complex neurodegenerative disorders to target with cell-based therapies, because local degeneration of dopamine neurons in the midbrain is critical for the clinical expression of many features of this disorder. It has therefore been the subject of a relatively large number of clinical transplantation trials using developing midbrain dopamine cells derived from the human fetal ventral midbrain22. Although the outcome of these trials has been highly variable23, they have shown that at least a sub-group of patients with Parkinson’s disease that receive such transplants at different centres do well24,25,26,27. However, the results have also shown that, over time, a minority of the transplanted cells become affected by the disease process and show protein aggregation28,29, and that some patients can experience troublesome side effects such as graft-induced dyskinesias30,31,32 relating to graft composition and capacity to innervate the whole putamen22.

Clinical trials using transplants of primary human fetal striatal tissue have also been performed in patients with Huntington’s disease33,34,35, on the premise that the medium spiny neurons of the striatum are the neurons that are primarily lost in this disease36. In this case, the neurons are placed homotopically into the striatum to reconstruct basal ganglia circuits. To date the effects in patients have been modest at best33,34,35, with evidence for poor graft survival and integration37.

Other neurodegenerative and CNS disorders have more complex pathologies, involving several cell types and/or cells in many regions of the CNS, and it is hard to see how these could be treated using fetal tissue transplants. However, stem cells may be a more promising source of cells for transplantation in such disorders, because they can be differentiated into a wide range of neuronal phenotypes.

Cell replacement therapy using stem cells

A major challenge for developing any cell replacement therapy is the ability to reliably and robustly generate large numbers of relevant cells. Recent developments using human embryonic stem cells (hES cells) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) have now made this possible38 and clinical trials using this approach are imminent, for example, in patients with Parkinson’s disease39,40.

Stem-cell-derived dopamine neurons have also been used to better understand graft function, innervation and integration in pre-clinical animal models of Parkinson’s disease. For example, comparative studies with human fetal ventral midbrain tissue have shown that both hESC and hiPSC-derived dopaminergic progenitors are very similar to their fetal counterparts41,42 and mediate functional recovery with equivalent potency over a similar time course43. New methodologies have also been used to study their mechanism of action, as well as their ability to appropriately innervate and integrate into host circuitry. These studies have shown that both fetal and stem-cell-derived dopaminergic neurons transplanted to the rat brain can innervate the correct target structures when placed either locally at the site of action (in the striatum) or back in the midbrain, which requires more extensive axonal outgrowth from the cells42,43. Furthermore, these cells not only innervate but also integrate into host neuronal circuitry44, and produce functional recovery38,45. Similarly, transplantation of stem-cell-derived medium spiny neurons have now been shown to survive and function in rodent models of striatal degeneration (used to model Huntington’s disease)46,47,48.

Another advantage of using stem-cell-derived transplants is the ability to remove or minimize unwanted neuronal subtypes; for example, serotonergic neurons that may mediate the graft-induced dyskinesias seen in patients that have received transplants of human fetal ventral midbrain tissue to treat Parkinson’s disease. Furthermore, it is possible to study the effect of grafting pure populations of neurons, or a combination of neuronal and or astrocytic cell types. Indeed, deficient astrocyte function may contribute to the loss of neurons in many neurodegenerative disorders, and the absence of such cells may affect neuronal survival in transplants, as has been shown in fetal striatal grafts in patients with Huntington’s disease49. As an alternative to possible co-grafting with glial cells, other agents or biomaterials engineered to express growth factors, immune-modulating components or similar substances to provide a supportive and protective microenvironment could be delivered together with the transplanted neurons; this could even include some form of scaffold for larger lesions such as stroke50.

Genetic modifications or correction of cells could also be used before transplantation to make the grafted cells resistant or refractory to the disease pathology. This may be of critical importance when the transplants are derived from the patients’ own cells42, or in diseases such as ALS, where motor neuron loss is driven in part by astrocytes. However, even unrelated healthy donor cells can be affected by proteinopathies in some neurodegenerative disorders, as has been seen in trials of fetal tissue transplantation for Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease28,29,51. In these cases, making cells resistant to the disease by removing the normal protein onto which the pathological species templates could be helpful.

Additionally, as genetic engineering tools become more refined, stem cells could be modified to enhance aspects of their behaviour. Such techniques could include modifying chemotactic interactions between the grafted cells and their progeny to enhance migration52; making cells refractory to the inhibitory cues of the glial scar; increasing their innervation potential by enhanced expression of polysialic acid53 (all of which would need to done so that the enhanced outgrowth was targeted specifically to the area for repair); and/or decreasing their immunogenicity54,55. Based on cell transplants in animal models, the possibility of engineering stem cell progeny so that their function can be modified using optogenetic or chemogenetic interventions is now also being considered45,56,57.

Cell replacement therapy for circuit reconstruction

Owing to the complexity of the organization of the cerebral cortex, replacing neurons in this part of the brain is a more challenging task, and is thus still at the pre-clinical stage. New technologies for studying cell integration and function have shown that transplanted cells mature, integrate into local host circuitry, form functional synapses, mediate recovery and provide circuit repair in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, stroke and cortical lesions58,59,60,61,62. Notably, it has recently been shown that the exact brain-wide input connectome of neurons in the mouse visual cortex can be replicated by transplanted neurons59. This is important, as aberrant connectivity could lead to deleterious consequences such as epileptic seizures. Thus, the adult mammalian brain is more plastic than previously thought in terms of accommodating new neurons and building new functional circuitry.

Replacement therapies using endogenous cells

Brain repair from endogenous sources has been considered for some time63, especially after the (re-)discovery of adult neurogenesis and proof of its existence in the human brain64,65, prompting attempts to recruit new neurons from endogenous neurogenic niches to achieve repair in the injured brain66,67 (Fig. 2). Simply recruiting new neurons from active neurogenic sites appears intuitively to be the most promising approach, and the easiest to achieve. However, in most cases, the subtypes of neurons needed for repair are different from those generated endogenously. Hence, attempts to recruit neuroblasts to form neurons at other sites have met with only limited success, with many of the neuroblasts streaming to the injury site but then failing to fully differentiate into appropriate neuronal types that can survive in the long term67,68 (Fig. 2). Adult neurogenesis is very species-specific69, though, so endogenous striatal neurogenesis that has been said to occur in the human (but not rodent)70,71 brain may prove useful and be more easily manipulated to generate the relevant neuronal subtypes lost in the striatum after stroke or in neurodegenerative disorders72,73.

Fig. 2: Strategies for in situ repair.
Fig. 2

a, Recruitment of new neurons from endogeneous precursors originating from sites of adult neurogenesis. b, Directed reprogramming of resident non-neuronal, glial cells.

A further approach to minimize neuronal loss or help repair and replacement is through the recruitment of stem-cell-derived astrocytes. These differ from the local parenchymal astrocytes and release an array of beneficial growth factors74. However, the extent to which this occurs in human patients and can be used for therapy is currently unknown.

Excitingly, attempts to turn stem-cell-derived astrocytes or other parenchymal glial cells into functional neurons by forced expression of neurogenic fate determinants have progressed rapidly. This idea was first tested in the nervous system in 2002, by turning glial cells into neurons in vitro75. The first attempts to achieve this in an injured brain in vivo in 2005 were exciting as proof-of-principle experiments, but disappointing in terms of quantitative outcome76,77,78. However, outcomes have improved recently79,80,81, and there is now encouraging data on fate conversion of local non-neuronal cells towards a neuronal phenotype of the sort affected by the disease process.

A single neurogenic transcription factor (acting also as potent fate determinant in development) can in many cases be sufficient to convert glial cells into fully functional neurons82. For example, neurogenin 2 or NEUROD1 can produce glutamatergic neurons from proliferating glial cells in the adult cerebral cortex, including in the highly inflamed brain environment found after traumatic brain injury79,83,84. The key to generating highly efficient neuronal conversion protocols is not necessarily to add more transcription factors, but rather to keep the induced neurons alive by protecting them from death and promoting their maturation. Many neurons induced by direct reprogramming from glial cells die because of the local generation of excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS), in a process known as ferroptosis79,84. By keeping the new neurons alive and reducing ROS levels, conversion efficiencies of over 90% have been achieved, with almost all glial cells, transduced with the neurogenic transcription factor, acquiring a neuronal identity within 1–3 weeks84. Importantly, these neurons also acquired a pyramidal neuronal morphology with the identity of deep layer neurons, at least at the transcriptional level. This approach has also shown promise in other brain areas, including in the minimally injured striatum (using SOX2 and growth factor treatment), the midbrain and the spinal cord85, and in the cerebral cortex using NEUROD1 and an amyloid plaque deposition model83. In these latter approaches, a mix of glutamatergic or GABAergic (γ-aminobutyric-acid-releasing) neurons has been obtained, which may be beneficial if several types of neurons need to be replaced or synaptic plasticity increased by providing new GABAergic interneurons, as shown through transplantation studies86,87. Synaptic plasticity and new circuit formation using these approaches could also be further promoted by co-administration of rehabilitation therapies (see above).

The promising outcome of direct reprogramming approaches raises two important issues: which glial cells to target and which vectors to use. Targeting proliferating glial cells has obvious advantages88, but they are heterogeneous1,76,89. Specific targeting of glial subtypes has been achieved using subtype-specific promoters that either drive reprogramming factors directly83,90,91 or drive cell-type-specific Cre expression in transgenic mice80,81,85. This approach has now been shown to work with AAVs that not only have been used in patients clinically but also can preferentially infect glial cells92,93,94. AAVs have been used to reprogram oligodendrocyte progenitor cells80,95 to a fate that is dependent on the transcription factor combination—for example, generating fast-spiking parvalbumin-expressing interneurons in the intact striatum95. Moreover, these neurons have been shown to receive input from local interneurons80. Finally, recent evidence suggests that striatal and midbrain astrocytes and NG2 glia can be converted to neurons with functional GABAergic- and dopaminergic-like phenotypes in a dopamine depletion model96. While these pioneering studies show that newly induced neurons can connect locally and result in behavioural changes, their long-distance inputs and outputs and contribution to the neuronal network still remain to be explored.

Direct neuronal reprogramming in the adult brain has come a long way in the past few years, but it remains to be seen how these exciting new approaches will translate to the clinic. While there are no major obstacles to turning adult human cells into functioning subtype-specific neurons, as has been shown, for example, with fibroblasts or pericytes in vitro97,98,99,100, neuronal reprogramming in vivo in the diseased brain has proven more challenging79. Thus, investigation of differences in the starting cells that affect the outcome of neuronal reprogramming, as well as influences in the local (disease) environment, is one of the next requirements to further this approach79. Moreover, tools need to be developed for non-invasive reprogramming techniques, either using systemic application of viral vectors (as is the case for some AAVs92,93,94) or using small molecules that have been shown to efficiently achieve direct neuronal reprogramming in vitro79,101.

Direct reprogramming also brings new standards to the field, as it is important to compare the induced cell type to the endogenous counterpart that is being replaced or instructed (for example, iPS cells to ES cells). This can be done using functional assessments and genome-wide expression analysis. Such techniques are urgently needed for the field of neuronal replacement, as it is so far unknown how authentic the transplanted or reprogrammed neurons really are, compared to their endogenous counterparts. Raising these standards in basic research and then translating them to the clinic will be a challenge for the future.

Conclusion and future perspectives

A broad approach will be needed to deliver effective repair strategies to the human brain that combine established approaches with new technologies, and ultimately may involve combination therapies. This progress will be possible only if we better understand disease states and the contribution of all cells and the ECM to the processes of damage and cell loss, as well as the innate regenerative ability of the adult brain and its capacity to be reprogrammed. By combining approaches to optimize the disease environment and synaptic plasticity while providing new neurons for replacement therapy, new circuits could be rebuilt with functional benefits across a range of disorders, and this could eventually develop into a more standard treatment. However, this will need to be an iterative approach with an ongoing dialogue between preclinical work and clinical trials. It will also be crucial to avoid the temptation to short-circuit this approach with premature claims and commercialization, which have the potential to derail this whole field.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Adams, K. L. & Gallo, V. The diversity and disparity of the glial scar. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 9–15 (2018).

  2. 2.

    Fawcett, J. W. The extracellular matrix in plasticity and regeneration after CNS injury and neurodegenerative disease. Prog. Brain Res. 218, 213–226 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Chieffi, S. et al. Neuroprotective effects of physical activity: evidence from human and animal studies. Front. Neurol. 8, 188 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Bartus, R. T. & Johnson, E. M. Jr. Clinical tests of neurotrophic factors for human neurodegenerative diseases, part 1: where have we been and what have we learned? Neurobiol. Dis. 97, 156–168 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Bartus, R. T. & Johnson, E. M. Jr. Clinical tests of neurotrophic factors for human neurodegenerative diseases, part 2: where do we stand and where must we go next? Neurobiol. Dis. 97, 169–178 (2017).

  6. 6.

    Gill, S. S. et al. Direct brain infusion of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in Parkinson disease. Nat. Med. 9, 589–595 (2003).

  7. 7.

    Patel, N. K. et al. Intraputamenal infusion of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in PD: a two-year outcome study. Ann. Neurol. 57, 298–302 (2005).

  8. 8.

    Slevin, J. T. et al. Unilateral intraputamenal glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in patients with Parkinson disease: response to 1 year of treatment and 1 year of withdrawal. J. Neurosurg. 106, 614–620 (2007).

  9. 9.

    Love, S. et al. Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor induces neuronal sprouting in human brain. Nat. Med. 11, 703–704 (2005).

  10. 10.

    Lang, A. E. et al. Randomized controlled trial of intraputamenal glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor infusion in Parkinson disease. Ann. Neurol. 59, 459–466 (2006).

  11. 11.

    Barker, R. A. Continuing trials of GDNF in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 5, 285–286 (2006).

  12. 12.

    Runeberg-Roos, P. et al. Developing therapeutically more efficient Neurturin variants for treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 96, 335–345 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Marks, W. J. Jr et al. Gene delivery of AAV2-neurturin for Parkinson’s disease: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 9, 1164–1172 (2010).

  14. 14.

    Warren Olanow, C. et al. Gene delivery of neurturin to putamen and substantia nigra in Parkinson disease: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann. Neurol. 78, 248–257 (2015).

  15. 15.

    Bartus, R. T. et al. Post-mortem assessment of the short and long-term effects of the trophic factor neurturin in patients with α-synucleinopathies. Neurobiol. Dis. 78, 162–171 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Decressac, M. et al. α-Synuclein-induced down-regulation of Nurr1 disrupts GDNF signaling in nigral dopamine neurons. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 163ra156 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Liddelow, S. A. et al. Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microglia. Nature 541, 481–487 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Das, M. M. et al. Human neural progenitors differentiate into astrocytes and protect motor neurons in aging rats. Exp. Neurol. 280, 41–49 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Lepore, A. C. et al. Focal transplantation-based astrocyte replacement is neuroprotective in a model of motor neuron disease. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 1294–1301 (2008).

  20. 20.

    Yang, S. et al. Antibody recognizing 4-sulfated chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans restores memory in tauopathy-induced neurodegeneration. Neurobiol. Aging 59, 197–209 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Bradbury, E. J. et al. Chondroitinase ABC promotes functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Nature 416, 636–640 (2002).

  22. 22.

    Barker, R. A., Drouin-Ouellet, J. & Parmar, M. Cell-based therapies for Parkinson disease—past insights and future potential. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 11, 492–503 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Barker, R. A., Barrett, J., Mason, S. L. & Björklund, A. Fetal dopaminergic transplantation trials and the future of neural grafting in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 12, 84–91 (2013). A useful summary of all the data from trials of fetal ventral midbrain transplantation in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the last 25 years and their conclusions.

  24. 24.

    Li, W. et al. Extensive graft-derived dopaminergic innervation is maintained 24 years after transplantation in the degenerating parkinsonian brain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6544–6549 (2016). A key study showing good graft survival and transplantation in a patient with Parkinson’s disease 24 years after transplantation.

  25. 25.

    Kefalopoulou, Z. et al. Long-term clinical outcome of fetal cell transplantation for Parkinson disease: two case reports. JAMA Neurol. 71, 83–87 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Hauser, R. A. et al. Long-term evaluation of bilateral fetal nigral transplantation in Parkinson disease. Arch. Neurol. 56, 179–187 (1999).

  27. 27.

    Mendez, I. et al. Cell type analysis of functional fetal dopamine cell suspension transplants in the striatum and substantia nigra of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Brain 128, 1498–1510 (2005).

  28. 28.

    Li, J. Y. et al. Lewy bodies in grafted neurons in subjects with Parkinson’s disease suggest host-to-graft disease propagation. Nat. Med. 14, 501–503 (2008).

  29. 29.

    Kurowska, Z. et al. Signs of degeneration in 12–22-year old grafts of mesencephalic dopamine neurons in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Parkinsons Dis. 1, 83–92 (2011).

  30. 30.

    Politis, M. et al. Serotonergic neurons mediate dyskinesia side effects in Parkinson’s patients with neural transplants. Sci. Transl. Med. 2, 38ra46 (2010).

  31. 31.

    Freed, C. R. et al. Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 710–719 (2001).

  32. 32.

    Olanow, C. W. et al. A double-blind controlled trial of bilateral fetal nigral transplantation in Parkinson’s disease. Ann. Neurol. 54, 403–414 (2003).

  33. 33.

    Bachoud-Lévi, A. et al. Safety and tolerability assessment of intrastriatal neural allografts in five patients with Huntington’s disease. Exp. Neurol. 161, 194–202 (2000).

  34. 34.

    Barker, R. A. et al. The long-term safety and efficacy of bilateral transplantation of human fetal striatal tissue in patients with mild to moderate Huntington’s disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 84, 657–665 (2013).

  35. 35.

    Hauser, R. A. et al. Bilateral human fetal striatal transplantation in Huntington’s disease. Neurology 58, 687–695 (2002).

  36. 36.

    Peschanski, M., Cesaro, P. & Hantraye, P. Rationale for intrastriatal grafting of striatal neuroblasts in patients with Huntington’s disease. Neuroscience 68, 273–285 (1995).

  37. 37.

    Cisbani, G. & Cicchetti, F. The fate of cell grafts for the treatment of Huntington’s disease: the post-mortem evidence. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 40, 71–90 (2014).

  38. 38.

    Steinbeck, J. A. & Studer, L. Moving stem cells to the clinic: potential and limitations for brain repair. Neuron 86, 187–206 (2015).

  39. 39.

    Barker, R. A., Parmar, M., Studer, L. & Takahashi, J. Human trials of stem cell-derived dopamine neurons for Parkinson’s disease: dawn of a new era. Cell Stem Cell 21, 569–573 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Abbott, A. Fetal-cell revival for Parkinson’s. Nature 510, 195–196 (2014).

  41. 41.

    Kirkeby, A. et al. Generation of regionally specified neural progenitors and functional neurons from human embryonic stem cells under defined conditions. Cell Reports 1, 703–714 (2012).

  42. 42.

    Kikuchi, T. et al. Human iPS cell-derived dopaminergic neurons function in a primate Parkinson’s disease model. Nature 548, 592–596 (2017). An important study showing the long-term survival and functional efficacy of iPS-cell-derived dopamine cells (including from patients with Parkinson’s disease) in non-human primate models of Parkinson’s disease.

  43. 43.

    Grealish, S. et al. Human ESC-derived dopamine neurons show similar preclinical efficacy and potency to fetal neurons when grafted in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Cell Stem Cell 15, 653–665 (2014). An key study showing that grafted stem-cell-derived dopamine neurons function equivalently to fetal cells in terms of maturation, innervation capacity, potency and function.

  44. 44.

    Grealish, S. et al. Monosynaptic tracing using modified rabies virus reveals early and extensive circuit integration of human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons. Stem Cell Reports 4, 975–983 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Chen, Y. et al. Chemical control of grafted human PSC-derived neurons in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease. Cell Stem Cell 18, 817–826 (2016).

  46. 46.

    Delli Carri, A. et al. Human pluripotent stem cell differentiation into authentic striatal projection neurons. Stem Cell Rev. 9, 461–474 (2013).

  47. 47.

    Reidling, J. C. et al. Human neural stem cell transplantation rescues functional deficits in R6/2 and Q140 Huntington’s disease mice. Stem Cell Reports 10, 58–72 (2018).

  48. 48.

    Ma, L. et al. Human embryonic stem cell-derived GABA neurons correct locomotion deficits in quinolinic acid-lesioned mice. Cell Stem Cell 10, 455–464 (2012).

  49. 49.

    Cisbani, G. et al. Striatal allografts in patients with Huntington’s disease: impact of diminished astrocytes and vascularization on graft viability. Brain 136, 433–443 (2013).

  50. 50.

    Kokaia, Z. & Lindvall, O. Stem cell repair of striatal ischemia. Prog. Brain Res. 201, 35–53 (2012).

  51. 51.

    Cicchetti, F. et al. Mutant huntingtin is present in neuronal grafts in Huntington disease patients. Ann. Neurol. 76, 31–42 (2014).

  52. 52.

    Ladewig, J., Koch, P. & Brüstle, O. Auto-attraction of neural precursors and their neuronal progeny impairs neuronal migration. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 24–26 (2014).

  53. 53.

    Battista, D., Ganat, Y., El Maarouf, A., Studer, L. & Rutishauser, U. Enhancement of polysialic acid expression improves function of embryonic stem-derived dopamine neuron grafts in Parkinsonian mice. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 3, 108–113 (2014).

  54. 54.

    Morizane, A. et al. MHC matching improves engraftment of iPSC-derived neurons in non-human primates. Nat. Commun. 8, 385 (2017).

  55. 55.

    Gornalusse, G. G. et al. HLA-E-expressing pluripotent stem cells escape allogeneic responses and lysis by NK cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 765–772 (2017).

  56. 56.

    Aldrin-Kirk, P. et al. DREADD modulation of transplanted DA neurons reveals a novel Parkinsonian dyskinesia mechanism mediated by the serotonin 5-HT6 receptor. Neuron 90, 955–968 (2016).

  57. 57.

    Steinbeck, J. A. et al. Optogenetics enables functional analysis of human embryonic stem cell-derived grafts in a Parkinson’s disease model. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 204–209 (2015).

  58. 58.

    Espuny-Camacho, I. et al. Hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease in stem-cell-derived human neurons transplanted into mouse brain. Neuron 93, 1066–1081 (2017).

  59. 59.

    Falkner, S. et al. Transplanted embryonic neurons integrate into adult neocortical circuits. Nature 539, 248–253 (2016).

  60. 60.

    Espuny-Camacho, I. et al. Pyramidal neurons derived from human pluripotent stem cells integrate efficiently into mouse brain circuits in vivo. Neuron 77, 440–456 (2013).

  61. 61.

    Tornero, D. et al. Synaptic inputs from stroke-injured brain to grafted human stem cell-derived neurons activated by sensory stimuli. Brain 140, 692–706 (2017).

  62. 62.

    Michelsen, K. A. et al. Area-specific reestablishment of damaged circuits in the adult cerebral cortex by cortical neurons derived from mouse embryonic stem cells. Neuron 85, 982–997 (2015).

  63. 63.

    Grade, S. & Götz, M. Neuronal replacement therapy: previous achievements and challenges ahead. NPJ Regen. Med. 2, 29 (2017).

  64. 64.

    Frisén, J. Neurogenesis and gliogenesis in nervous system plasticity and repair. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 32, 127–141 (2016).

  65. 65.

    Paredes, M. F., Sorrells, S. F., Garcia-Verdugo, J. M. & Alvarez-Buylla, A. Brain size and limits to adult neurogenesis. J. Comp. Neurol. 524, 646–664 (2016).

  66. 66.

    Nakatomi, H. et al. Regeneration of hippocampal pyramidal neurons after ischemic brain injury by recruitment of endogenous neural progenitors. Cell 110, 429–441 (2002).

  67. 67.

    Arvidsson, A., Collin, T., Kirik, D., Kokaia, Z. & Lindvall, O. Neuronal replacement from endogenous precursors in the adult brain after stroke. Nat. Med. 8, 963–970 (2002). An early study that provided important evidence for endogenous neurogenesis after brain injury.

  68. 68.

    Thored, P. et al. Long-term neuroblast migration along blood vessels in an area with transient angiogenesis and increased vascularization after stroke. Stroke 38, 3032–3039 (2007).

  69. 69.

    Lipp, H. P. & Bonfanti, L. Adult neurogenesis in mammals: variations and confusions. Brain Behav. Evol. 87, 205–221 (2016).

  70. 70.

    Wang, C. et al. Human and monkey striatal interneurons are derived from the medial ganglionic eminence but not from the adult subventricular zone. J. Neurosci. 34, 10906–10923 (2014).

  71. 71.

    Ernst, A. et al. Neurogenesis in the striatum of the adult human brain. Cell 156, 1072–1083 (2014).

  72. 72.

    Grande, A. et al. Environmental impact on direct neuronal reprogramming in vivo in the adult brain. Nat. Commun. 4, 2373 (2013).

  73. 73.

    Magnusson, J. P. et al. A latent neurogenic program in astrocytes regulated by Notch signaling in the mouse. Science 346, 237–241 (2014). This work shows the in vivo conversion of astrocytes into neurons solely by removing Notch signalling and that this conversion occurs in an interesting region-specific manner only in the striatum, showing that these astrocytes are more prone to neurogenesis than others.

  74. 74.

    Benner, E. J. et al. Protective astrogenesis from the SVZ niche after injury is controlled by Notch modulator Thbs4. Nature 497, 369–373 (2013).

  75. 75.

    Heins, N. et al. Glial cells generate neurons: the role of the transcription factor Pax6. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 308–315 (2002). This work pioneered the approach of converting glial cells into neurons and showed the successful conversion of postnatal glial cells into neurons.

  76. 76.

    Buffo, A. et al. Expression pattern of the transcription factor Olig2 in response to brain injuries: implications for neuronal repair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18183–18188 (2005).

  77. 77.

    Ohori, Y. et al. Growth factor treatment and genetic manipulation stimulate neurogenesis and oligodendrogenesis by endogenous neural progenitors in the injured adult spinal cord. J. Neurosci. 26, 11948–11960 (2006).

  78. 78.

    Kronenberg, G. et al. Modulation of fate determinants Olig2 and Pax6 in resident glia evokes spiking neuroblasts in a model of mild brain ischemia. Stroke 41, 2944–2949 (2010).

  79. 79.

    Gascón, S., Masserdotti, G., Russo, G. L. & Götz, M. Direct neuronal reprogramming: achievements, hurdles, and new roads to success. Cell Stem Cell 21, 18–34 (2017).

  80. 80.

    Torper, O. et al. In vivo reprogramming of striatal NG2 glia into functional neurons that integrate into local host circuitry. Cell Rep. 12, 474–481 (2015). This work shows the in vivo connectivity of reprogrammed neurons in the striatum that receive local, but not long-distance, inputs.

  81. 81.

    Torper, O. et al. Generation of induced neurons via direct conversion in vivo. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 7038–7043 (2013).

  82. 82.

    Masserdotti, G., Gascón, S. & Götz, M. Direct neuronal reprogramming: learning from and for development. Development 143, 2494–2510 (2016).

  83. 83.

    Guo, Z. et al. In vivo direct reprogramming of reactive glial cells into functional neurons after brain injury and in an Alzheimer’s disease model. Cell Stem Cell 14, 188–202 (2014).

  84. 84.

    Gascón, S. et al. Identification and successful negotiation of a metabolic checkpoint in direct neuronal reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 18, 396–409 (2016). This work revealed a metabolic hurdle during the direct reprogramming of glia and many other cell types into neurons and showed that protecting neurons from death and ROS resulted in very high conversion efficiency in the injured mouse cerebral cortex in vivo.

  85. 85.

    Wang, L. L. & Zhang, C. L. Engineering new neurons: in vivo reprogramming in mammalian brain and spinal cord. Cell Tissue Res. 371, 201–212 (2018).

  86. 86.

    Southwell, D. G., Froemke, R. C., Alvarez-Buylla, A., Stryker, M. P. & Gandhi, S. P. Cortical plasticity induced by inhibitory neuron transplantation. Science 327, 1145–1148 (2010).

  87. 87.

    Tang, Y., Stryker, M. P., Alvarez-Buylla, A. & Espinosa, J. S. Cortical plasticity induced by transplantation of embryonic somatostatin or parvalbumin interneurons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18339–18344 (2014).

  88. 88.

    Dimou, L. & Götz, M. Glial cells as progenitors and stem cells: new roles in the healthy and diseased brain. Physiol. Rev. 94, 709–737 (2014).

  89. 89.

    Heinrich, C. et al. Sox2-mediated conversion of NG2 glia into induced neurons in the injured adult cerebral cortex. Stem Cell Reports 3, 1000–1014 (2014).

  90. 90.

    Niu, W. et al. SOX2 reprograms resident astrocytes into neural progenitors in the adult brain. Stem Cell Reports 4, 780–794 (2015).

  91. 91.

    Liu, Y. et al. Ascl1 converts dorsal midbrain astrocytes into functional neurons in vivo. J. Neurosci. 35, 9336–9355 (2015).

  92. 92.

    Deverman, B. E. et al. Cre-dependent selection yields AAV variants for widespread gene transfer to the adult brain. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 204–209 (2016).

  93. 93.

    Vagner, T., Dvorzhak, A., Wójtowicz, A. M., Harms, C. & Grantyn, R. Systemic application of AAV vectors targeting GFAP-expressing astrocytes in Z-Q175-KI Huntington’s disease mice. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 77, 76–86 (2016).

  94. 94.

    Kunze, C. et al. Synthetic AAV/CRISPR vectors for blocking HIV-1 expression in persistently infected astrocytes. Glia 66, 413–427 (2018).

  95. 95.

    Pereira, M. et al. Direct reprogramming of resident NG2 glia into neurons with properties of fast-spiking parvalbumin-containing interneurons. Stem Cell Reports 9, 742–751 (2017). This work shows how a very precise neuronal subtype can be achieved by targeting a specific glial subtype.

  96. 96.

    Rivetti di Val Cervo, P. et al. Induction of functional dopamine neurons from human astrocytes in vitro and mouse astrocytes in a Parkinson’s disease model. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 444–452 (2017).

  97. 97.

    Karow, M. et al. Reprogramming of pericyte-derived cells of the adult human brain into induced neuronal cells. Cell Stem Cell 11, 471–476 (2012). This study showed that non-neuronal cells from the adult human brain could be successfully converted into functional neurons, opening up the possibility of using direct in vivo neuronal reprogramming for human patients.

  98. 98.

    Pfisterer, U. et al. Direct conversion of human fibroblasts to dopaminergic neurons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10343–10348 (2011).

  99. 99.

    Drouin-Ouellet, J. et al. REST suppression mediates neural conversion of adult human fibroblasts via microRNA-dependent and -independent pathways. EMBO Mol. Med. 9, 1117–1131 (2017).

  100. 100.

    Pang, Z. P. et al. Induction of human neuronal cells by defined transcription factors. Nature 476, 220–223 (2011).

  101. 101.

    Zhang, L. et al. Small molecules efficiently reprogram human astroglial cells into functional neurons. Cell Stem Cell 17, 735–747 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

R.A.B. is funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre in Cambridge, Cure PD, PDUK, European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme: FP/2007-2013 NeuroStemcellRepair (no. 602278), Wellcome Trust MRC Stem Cell Institute and MRC UKRMP PSCP. He has received consultancy payments from FCDI and LCT. M.G. is funded by the German Research Foundation (CRC870, SPP1738, 1757, EXC1010 Synergy), The Ministry of Science and Research (MAIV), ERANET and the ERC (ChroNeuroRepair). M.P. receives funding from the New York Stem Cell Foundation, the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme: FP/2007-2013 NeuroStemcellRepair (no. 602278) and ERC Grant Agreement no. 30971, the Swedish Research Council and the Strategic Research Area Multipark at Lund University. M.P. is a New York Stem Cell Foundation Robertson Investigator. We thank D. Daft for her help in the preparation of this manuscript.

Reviewer information

Nature thanks P. Arlotta, J. Takahashi and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    • Roger A. Barker
  2. Institute for Stem Cell Research, Helmholtz Center Munich and Physiological Genomics, Biomedical Center, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Planegg-Martinsried, Germany

    • Magdalena Götz
  3. SyNergy, Excellence Cluster Systems Neurology, Center for Stroke and Dementia, Munich, Germany

    • Magdalena Götz
  4. Wallenberg Neuroscience Center and Lund Stem Cell Center, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    • Malin Parmar

Authors

  1. Search for Roger A. Barker in:

  2. Search for Magdalena Götz in:

  3. Search for Malin Parmar in:

Contributions

All three authors contributed to the design, writing and critical review of this manuscript.

Competing interests

M.P. is the owner of Parmar Cells AB and co-inventor on US patent applications 15/093,927 owned by Biolamina AB and EP17181588 owned by Miltenyi Biotec. Patent WO 2015/114059 A1 patents the use of BCL2 in reprogramming. R.A.B. and M.G. have no competing interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Roger A. Barker or Magdalena Götz or Malin Parmar.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0087-1

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.