Open Access

Noninvasive in-vivo tracing and imaging of transplanted stem cells for liver regeneration

  • Panpan Cen1,
  • Jiajia Chen1,
  • Chenxia Hu1,
  • Linxiao Fan1,
  • Jie Wang1 and
  • Lanjuan Li1Email author
Stem Cell Research & Therapy20167:143

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-016-0396-y

Published: 23 September 2016

Abstract

Terminal liver disease is a major cause of death globally. The only ultimate therapeutic approach is orthotopic liver transplant. Because of the innate defects of organ transplantation, stem cell-based therapy has emerged as an effective alternative, based on the capacity of stem cells for multilineage differentiation and their homing to injured sites. However, the disease etiology, cell type, timing of cellular graft, therapeutic dose, delivery route, and choice of endpoints have varied between studies, leading to different, even divergent, results. In-vivo cell imaging could therefore help us better understand the fate and behaviors of stem cells to optimize cell-based therapy for liver regeneration. The primary imaging techniques in preclinical or clinical studies have consisted of optical imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, radionuclide imaging, reporter gene imaging, and Y chromosome-based fluorescence in-situ hybridization imaging. More attention has been focused on developing new or modified imaging methods for longitudinal and high-efficiency tracing. Herein, we provide a descriptive overview of imaging modalities and discuss recent advances in the field of molecular imaging of intrahepatic stem cell grafts.

Keywords

Stem cellsStem cell therapyIn-vivo imagingLabelingOptical imagingRadionuclidesSuper paramagnetic iron oxideReporter genesLiver regeneration

Background

Liver dysfunction is a serious healthcare problem worldwide that can progress to fulminant or chronic liver failure, and eventually deteriorate into end-stage liver disease. Currently, the only ultimate therapeutic approach for these diseases is orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). Nevertheless, the potential benefits are extraordinarily hindered by the major characteristics of organ scarcity, surgical intervention, postoperative complication, and life-long immunosuppressive medication, which have urgently facilitated the exploration of novel strategies to promote hepatic self-rehabilitation ability and reverse the pernicious process.

Early observations that stem cells derived from somatic cells, bone marrow, and embryonic cells exhibit the capacity of multipotential differentiation and self-renewal in vitro led to the proposal that they might migrate to the injured sites driven by environmental triggers and partly substitute the function of hepatocytes. Thus, over the last several years, stem cell-based therapy has emerged as a possible alternative, revolutionizing the treatment of liver regeneration or enabling patients to buy time before liver transplantation [14]. By homing to damaged tissues, stem cells contribute to alleviating the liver dysfunction. However, the potential mechanisms involved are not yet completely understood. Moreover, the disease etiology, cell type, timing of cellular graft, therapeutic dose, delivery route, and choice of endpoints have varied between study groups, leading to different, even divergent, treatment outcomes. Optimizing stem cell-based therapies will therefore require a better understanding of the cellular viability, biodistribution, differentiation capacity, and long-term fate after engraftment, with imaging techniques playing a pivotal role. Successful implementation of proper cell labeling enables noninvasive monitoring for the in-vivo tracing of cellular biology, and provides some clues for stem cell therapies.

An ideal imaging technique should most of all be biocompatible; that is, with low toxicity to both the labeled cells and the host. Additionally, the imaging technique should allow the relatively long-term visualization of infused cells with high temporary and spatial resolution, and meanwhile be available for histological or functional analysis. In addition, it is vital that the labeling agent or marker should be highly specific to original cells, passed to all progenies, and not transfected to nontarget cells [5, 6]. To the best of our knowledge, there is no single imaging method that satisfies all of the ideal conditions. However, we can combine multiple imaging strategies to achieve optimal imaging sensitivity, resolution, and time for follow-up.

Currently, in-vivo cell tracing in liver tissues is performed by direct labeling techniques or reporter gene labeling. Direct labeling is the most straightforward method, introducing imaging-detectable probes into target cells before implantation, including dye-mediated optical imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radionuclide imaging. A few researchers have also utilized Y chromosome-based fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) imaging. In this review, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these imaging modalities and provide an overview of the recent advances in the domain of molecular imaging of intrahepatic stem cell grafts.

Dye-mediated optical imaging

Fluorescent probe labeling was developed for direct-viewing detection during in-vivo applications of cellular visualization and monitoring. This method provides the basis of other subsequently developed tracer techniques. Connection of fluorophores to labeled stem cells would allow detection of migrated stem cells by postmortem liver tissues using a fluorescent microscope. Thus far, a variety of fluorescent dye has been utilized, which can reversibly or irreversibly bind to the cell nucleus (e.g., 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI), bis-benzimide (Hoechst), 5-bromo-2′-deoxyuridine (BrdU)) or the cell membrane (e.g., PKH26, 1,1-dioctadecyl-3,3,3,3-tetramethylindotricarbocyanine iodide (DiR)), or locate in the nucleus, membrane, and cytoplasm (e.g., carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl amino ester (CFSE)).

To date, a large number of animal studies involving different liver disease models have been promoted as a result of preclinical data in favor of fluorescent dyes for stem cell in-vivo tracing (Table 1). For example, the membrane lipophilic dyes DiR [7] and CM-DiI [8] have effectively labeled bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) and showed no impairment of cytomophology and cell viability. PKH26 is a safe fluorescent marker with good biocompatibility, although a recent study has indicated that PKH26 labeling was not specific to the transplanted cells [9]. Moreover, the groups of both Ikeda et al. [10] and Zhan et al. [11] have used fluorescent PKH26 dye to demonstrate the capacity of stem cells to differentiate into hepatocytes in pathologic hepatic environments and express liver-specific markers Alb, CK8, and CK18.
Table 1

Intrahepatic animal stem cell tracking studies with dye-mediated optical imaging

Study

Species (n)

Animal model

Cell type

Agent

Delivery/number of cells infused

Study observations

Ma, 2014 [7]

Mice (75)

CCl4-induced ALF model

Xenogeneic BMSCs

DiR

Caudal vein/106

At 5 days after transplantation, a strong fluorescent signal from labeled CXCR4 MSCs was almost distributed in the liver, whereas in the null group the liver and spleen transmitted nearly the same signal intensity

Sun et al., 2013 [8]

Rats (18)

CBDL-induced obstructive liver disease model

Allogeneic BMSCs

CM-DiI

Intrasplenic injection/106

Detection of fluorescence-labeled cells after 1 week

The labeling procedure did not impair cytomophology

The fluorescent images showed that the IOD was significantly larger in experiment group, and the signals presented unevenly distribution in the fibrous liver tissue

Ikeda et al., 2008 [10]/Zhan et al., 2006 [11]

Rats (7/unknown)

CCl4-induced liver injury model

Allogeneic TGPCs/HSC

PKH26

Portal vein/107

The red fluorescent cells demonstrated the capacity of stem cells to migrate, proliferate, and differentiate in pathologic hepatic environments after engraftment

Li et al., 2013 [12]

Mice (14)

MHCC97-H-induced HCC model

Xenogeneic BMSCs

RFP, GFP, BrdU, DAPI

Caudal vein/105

Luminescent binucleated cells were seldom observed both in vitro and in vivo for a long-term follow-up period

After 4 days, most BMSCs grafted to the tumor focus, and after 20 days, labeled MSCs almost accumulated in the tumor stroma

Ezzat et al., 2012 [13]

Mice (40)

APAP-induced ALF model

Allogeneic ESCs

DiR, GFP

Intrasplenic injection/106

DiR-labeled cells accumulated in the spleen within 30 min, moved to the liver at 3 hours, disseminated to almost all regions of the liver at 24 hours, and faded at 72 hours

GFP-positive cells were found under the liver capsule and were still detected after 2 weeks

Akham et al., 2015 [15]

Rats (6)

PHx-induced liver injury model

Allogeneic BMSCs

CPN

Caudal vein/106

Postmortem liver tissue showed the presence of luminescent cells at the injury lesions and retained there

The labeling process did not impair the marker expression, multilineage differentiation ability, or cell viability

Yukawa et al., 2012 [16]

Mice (18)

CCl4-induced ALF model

Allogeneic AD-MSCs

QDs

Caudal vein/106

Within 10 min, 70 % of fluorescent signal retained in the lungs and 30 % of signals came from the liver when AD-MSCs were transplanted with heparin

After 1 day, the accumulation rate decreased to 10 % in both organs and maintained for at least 2 days

CCl4 carbon tetrachloride, BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell, ALF acute liver failure; CXCR4 chemokine CXC receptor 4, CBDL common bile duct ligation, IOD integral optical density, HSC hematopoietic stem cell, TGPC tooth germ progenitor cell, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, GFP green fluorescent protein, RFP red fluorescent protein, APAP acetaminophen, ESC embryonic stem cell, PHx partial hepatectomy, CPN conjugated polymer-based water-dispersible nanoparticles, AD-MSC adipose-derived mesenchymal cell, QD quantum dot, DAPI 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, BrdU 5-bromo-2′-deoxyuridine, DiR 1,1-dioctadecyl-3,3,3,3-tetramethylindotricarbocyanine iodide

However, narrow penetration depth and unsatisfactory photostability of traditional fluorescent dyes are the most severe limitations for in-vivo imaging even in rodents, let alone use for human intrahepatic detection. In order to achieve real-time visualization and longitudinal tracking results, dual or multiple labeling [12, 13] and new types of near-infrared fluorescence probes (e.g., quantum dots (QDs) [14], conjugated polymer-based water-dispersible nanoparticles (CPNs) [15]) have been implemented to optimize molecular imaging. QDs consist of inorganic semiconductor nanoparticles, provide a narrow emission spectrum to reduce autogenic fluorescence, allow exact single molecule positioning, and possess superior photostability. Peripheral intravenous delivery of QD-labeled MSCs has been successfully tracked in the liver for at least 2 days [16]. While in cardiovascular application, QD-labeled stem cells were reported to maintain in the heart for at least 8 weeks [17]. The particular optical advantages make QDs seem to be promising candidates for long-term in-vivo imaging for liver regeneration.

Proper cell labeling is essential to better understand cellular biology and provide clues for stem cell therapies. In most of the cell tracking animal studies, stem cells were well distributed in the liver after transplantation for a relatively long-term period through the spleen or portal vein. This may indicate that peripheral intravenous injection is not the optimal route of cell therapy for renewal of liver function owing to the major cell retention outside the liver. In addition, no studies have shown impaired cell viability and differentiation ability. Thus, because of their relative safety, high efficiency, low cost, and ease of use, fluorescent probes have gained extensive application for both in-vivo and in-vitro experiments. Fluorescence probes provide high sensitivity and allow for multiple labeling according to their different optical spectrum characteristics [18]. They emit varying intensities and colors of fluorescence simultaneously or successively to satisfy the different requirements of tracing. However, poor spatial resolution, shallow penetration, and inevitable light decay along with cell division have largely restricted this imaging strategy to visualizing deep anatomy such as hepatic sinusoid without invasive manipulation. New types of nanoparticle probes (e.g., QDs) have emerged to circumvent some of the problems, but the high doses may increase nontarget binding and the safety issue still requires attention [19]. Therefore, dye-mediated optical techniques are currently suitable for short-term tracking and preclinical application. We still have to face great challenges before they can be pushed into clinical practice.

Magnetic resonance imaging

With the development of molecular imaging, MRI has emerged as a noninvasive and sensitive technique for longitudinal tracing of the distribution, retention, homing, and differentiation of transplanted progenitor cells in intact living organisms. Since MRI combines high spatial (25–100 μm) and soft-tissue resolution with free selection of the imaging plane [18], MRI techniques have been widely applied in animal research for in-vivo tracing of transplanted stem cells (Table 2).
Table 2

Intrahepatic animal stem cell tracking studies with MRI

Study

Species (n)

Animal model

Cell type

Agent

Delivery/number of cells infused

Study observations

Pang et al., 2015 [22]

Rats (18)

CCl4-induced liver fibrosis model

Allogeneic BMSCs

PEG-g-PEI-SPIO

Mesenteric vein/106

Detection of modified cells for up to 2 weeks post transplantation

Labeled cells were still present in the liver intralobular parenchyma after 2 weeks

The labeling process displayed good biocompatibility

Zhao et al., 2014 [23]

Mice (12)

CCl4-induced liver injury model

Xenogeneic AD-MSCs

SPIO

Splenic vein/107

Hypointense MRI images were detected until 7 days

The attenuation of MRI signals mainly arose from excretion of SPIO

Fluorescence and PB staining showed that the SPIO particles were still inside the stem cells

The location of AD-MSC accumulation was well integrated with the liver injury focus

Chen et al., 2012 [25]

Rats (40)

PHx-induced liver injury model

Allogeneic BMSCs

SPIO

Directly intrahepatic into residual lobe/106

An oval hypointense area at injection sites was visible within 2 weeks by MRI, while the signal intensity decreased with time

PB stain showed the presence of Feridex-labeled cells in the liver sinusoid

Wang et al., 2014 [26]

Mice (12)

CCl4-induced liver injury model

Allogeneic EPCs

SPIO

Caudal vein/106

Detection of grafted cells after 8 days

PB stain revealed SPION containing stem cells accumulated in the liver parenchyma, particularly along sinusoids and portal areas

Bos et al., 2004 [27]

Rats (4)

CCl4-induced ALF model

Allogeneic BMSCs

SPIO

Portal vein/106

Detection of cells up to 12 days

Signal intensity loss of MRI appeared a granular pattern

Matching areas stained positive for PB and CD90 antigen of postmortem liver tissue showed the SPIO particles were retained in the originally labeled cells

Cai et al., 2008 [28]

Rats (30)

CCl4-induced ALF model

Allogeneic BMSCs

SPIO

Hepatic artery/106

Hypointense MRI images faded over time and were detected within 7 days

Cell viability was not impaired by labeling procedure for up to 4 weeks

PB staining and DAPI-stained blue fluorescent nuclei showed the presence of original iron particles containing cells

Zhou et al., 2010 [29]

Rats (18)

CCl4-induced liver fibrosis model

Allogeneic BMSCs

SPIO

Mesenteric vein/106

Detection of grafted cells for 12 days in BMSC-labeled group, but for only 3 days in cell-free SPIO group

PB staining showed the presence of originally labeled cells in the portal region at 3 days, and mainly in the injured areas of intralobular parenchyma at 15 days

Kim et al., 2010 [31]

Rats (14)

DMN-induced liver fibrosis model

Xenogeneic BMSCs

MNP

SPIO

Intrasplenic injection/106

Detection of transplanted cells after 14 days

The decrease of MRI signal intensity was more obvious in MNP-tagged group. Masson trichrome staining and autofluorescent images of MNP-tagged cells showed most stem cells migrated to the fibrous septa

Ju et al., 2007 [32]

Rats (12)

CCl4-induced liver cirrhosis model

Allogeneic

BMSCs

SPIO

Splenic vein/106

Detection of injected cells for up to 2 weeks

No visible blue particles were found in unlabeled cells after PB staining

Grafted cells were mainly distributed in periportal and injured areas

CCl4 carbon tetrachloride, BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell, PEG-g-PEI-SPIO superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles coated with polyethylene glycol-grafted polyethylenimine, AD-MSC adipose-derived mesenchymal cell, SPIO superparamagnetic iron oxides, PB Prussian blue, DAPI 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, PHx partial hepatectomy; MRI magnetic resonance imaging; EPC endothelial progenitor cell, ALF acute liver failure; DMN dimethylnitrosamine; MNP fluorescent magnetic nanoparticle

Currently, gadolinium chelates (Gd3+-DTPA) and superparamagnetic iron oxides (SPIO) are the most frequently used imaging agents for in-vivo detection with MRI. Lanthanide gadolinium, known as T1 contrast agent, produces an enhanced intensity zone on T1-weighted MRI images, while SPIO nanoparticles generate hypointense areas with the T2 modality. Superparamagnetic agents are usually composed of a crystal core, typically 3–5 nm in mean diameter. Because of their good biocompatibility and high relaxivity, SPIO nanoparticles have been considered to be a preferred MRI agent tracer for cell labeling. Moreover, these contrast agents have been FDA approved as a liver agent for clinical use (SPIO: Feridex, USA; Endorem, Europe) [20].

Much effort has been made to optimize the internalization process for high-efficiency cellular magnetic labeling of stem cells, since they lack the ability of phagocytosis. So far, the most commonly used method is magnetofection, which requires transfection agents (most are cationics), such as lipofectamine, poly-l-lysine, dextran, and protamine sulfate, to envelop SPIO nanoparticles by electrostatic interactions and pass through the cell membrane [21]. Nonionic dendrimer-coated SPIO particles have also been reported to track BMSCs in rats with liver fibrosis for 2 weeks [22]. One disadvantage of current commercially available transfection agents is the long incubation periods resulting in the risk of altering their properties, although no research has shown that the transduction procedures influenced the viability or multilineage differentiation potential of stem cells in appropriate media and activated inflammatory response [23]. To achieve high uptake rates and efficient labeling, SPIO were reported to have been derivatized with HIV-Tat protein-derived peptide sequences for in-vivo tracing [24]. In numerous preclinical studies, various stem cell lines have been effectively labeled by magnetofection and tracked in the liver for several weeks using MRI in vivo [2529]. The hypointense MRI was well integrated with the focus of liver injury, indicating that transplanted stem cells have the ability to home to where they are most needed. However, these agents are not yet clinically approved, which may raise safety concerns with patients for their potential toxicity. Another strategy to induce intracytoplasmatic magnetic labeling is magnetoelectroporation (MEP), a more rapid and efficient method to mediate endocytosis of SPIO [30]. Based on the mechanism of lower voltage pulses, this technology does not require transfection agents, which to some extent circumvents a major barrier for clinical application. Although there have been no animal or clinical studies using magnetoelectroporation for labeling of intrahepatic stem cell grafts, further explorations can be prompted. In addition, fluorescent magnetic nanoparticle (MNP), a new commercially tagging material, was applied in a liver cirrhosis rat model [31]. MNP obtains the strong points of both magnetism and optics, and no transfection agents are needed for cell labeling, thus also efficiently avoiding potential threats for the clinic.

The mechanisms of gradual signal intensity restoration of MRI are not yet fully understood. Several scholars have attributed the signal drop mainly to the excretion of SPIO, which was confirmed by histological examination in the study by Zhao et al. [23], by coincidence capturing the possible excretion route of SPIO and showing that the liver macrophages engulfed cell fragments together with the SPIO agent. Another group showed no Kupffer cells containing blue particles were observable on histological analysis [32]. Thus, the proposed mechanism was that the labeled cells were gradually mobilized out of the liver. Consequently, a major limitation of MRI is that the direct-viewing detection of labeled cells depends on the appearance of SPIO within the cells. It is difficult for us to recognize the iron particles released from labeled cells. False positive results might occur if neighboring hepatocytes engulf the iron oxide [33]. Another disadvantage is that SPIO, as a T2 contrast agent, produces gradually attenuated intensity areas on MRI images during the follow-up period, thus rendering it difficult for quantification, because it is difficult to draw cause–effect conclusions about the signal intensity and cell viability [14]. Finally, regarding clinical application, people with implant cardiac pacemakers or metal foreign bodies are contraindicated.

Despite these concerns, MRI has potential for short-term or long-term tracing of intrahepatic dynamic migration processes of stem cells. MRI can provide three-dimensional imaging with high spatial and temporary resolution, which is well suited for implementing the subtle positioning, such as in the sinusoids, portal, or perihepatic areas, and performing qualitative analysis of stem cell fate and behavior. Several scholars have demonstrated the feasibility of MRI for noninvasive visualization of various stem cells grafted to cardiovascular tissue and the nervous system for clinical trials [3436]. In the field of liver diseases, the move of regeneration medicine from bench to bedside remains to be undertaken. Novel developments in MRI-visible tagging materials need to be focused on to further achieve this transition.

Radionuclide imaging

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) are highly sensitive (10–11–10–12 mol/l) modalities available for radionuclide imaging, which can separately detect γ-emitting isotopes (e.g., 111In, 131I, 99mTc) and positron-emitting isotopes (e.g., 18F, 124I, 68Ga) with short half-lives to follow cellular trafficking and biodistribution [18]. PET has a preferable spatial and temporal resolution (~1 cm/second to minute) to SPECT (1–2 cm/minute), but is far inferior to MRI [37]. Like optical labeling methods, stem cells are tagged by direct incubation with the radioactive tracers, which passively penetrate the cell membrane and bind to different intracellular components within a short time [38].

In-vivo radionuclide imaging of infused stem cells labeled with various isotopes has shown promising results for noninvasive tracing in both preclinical and human studies, although the labeling technique has not been widely used for intrahepatic applications. For clinical trials in humans, 111In-oxine, 99mTc, and 18F-FDG are the most extensively used agents for PET or SPECT imaging. Gholamrezanezhad et al. [39] recruited four patients with uncompensated liver cirrhosis into a study, and the patients underwent intravenous injection of 111In-oxine-labeled MSCs with tagging efficiency from 36 to 53 %. SPECT images showed constantly increasing radioactivity in the liver within 10 days post infusion and no unexpected side effects occurred over 1 month of follow-up. In another clinical phase 1 study, the migration of 99mTc-labeled bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells following hepatic arterial transplant into eight patients with liver cirrhosis was identified by scintigraphy [40]. In-vivo imaging after 3 and 24 hours showed 41 % and 32 % of the total radioactivity, respectively, in the liver tissue. Ameliorative liver function by biochemical tests was also observed.

However, some persistent disadvantages cannot be ignored. The short half-lives of radioisotopes, such as 99mTc with 6 hours, 18F with 110 minutes, and 124I with 4 hours, largely limit the long-term detection of radioactivity, so that only the immediate imaging of cellular behavior can be analyzed. For example, the group of Li et al. [41] provided evidence for the mobilization of 131I-labeled induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) after peripheral infusion from their original localization to the liver of mice. Serial monitoring of radioactivity signals by γ-camera revealed that the in-vivo signal intensity suffered a progressive recession at 12 hours post cell transplantation. Additionally, time-dependent cytotoxic effects and ionizing radiation damage to target cells still need to be properly assessed. Because radiotracers may risk being excreted from the originally labeled cells, confusing signals could be generated from free radioactive isotopes, which can lead to inaccurate investigations [42].

In summary, the successful implementation of tracing isotope-labeled stem cells homing to the liver demonstrates the feasibility of radionuclide imaging as a noninvasive tool to monitor cell delivery, biodistribution, and fate for clinical practice. However, the short half-life of radionuclides is the major clinical barrier for long-term tracing. Longer-lived radioisotopes should be explored in the future, also taking into account the biosecurity and practicability.

Reporter gene labeling

Direct labeling modalities universally suffer from inevitable signal attenuation, accompanied by cellular division over time. To circumvent this limitation, reporter gene imaging was developed to trace the multilineage of progenitor cells in complex systems of interest. The reporter genes are transferred into the genome of target stem cells via viral or nonviral methods, including transfection of expressing plasmid cDNA, transduction with lentiviral/adenoviral/cytomegaloviral vectors, or acquisition from transgenic animals [43]. Once they are incorporated, the reporter genes, which are activated by endogenous or exogenous promoters, encode the overexpression of various reporter proteins, such as fluorophores (green fluorescent protein (GFP)), enzymes (herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase (HSV-tk), luciferase, β-galactosidase), receptors (dopamine 2 receptor), and transporter proteins (sodium iodide symporter (NIS)) [37]. After the implementation of reporter probes, the generated signals are immediately captured by different imaging devices; for example, optical charge-coupled device (CCD), SPECT, or PET.

Intrahepatic cell tracking using reporter genes has shown a promising outlook, although the technique is currently used in animal studies for some ethical concerns (Table 3). Real-time visualization of the cellular biodistribution in the liver was dynamically assessed by luciferase-based bioluminescence imaging (BLI) [4446]. Bioluminescence provides excellent sensitivity reaching 10–15–10–17 mol/l and relatively high throughput, but it is limited by a weak depth of penetration of 1–2 cm with a high absorption rate in hemoglobin [47]. Furthermore, the luminescent cells in damaged liver tissue exhibited a hepatocyte-like morphology and human alpha fetal protein (AFP) expression was detected in corresponding regions, which well documented that liver regeneration was motivated by the homing behavior of stem cells toward environmental cues and their potential hepatogenic differentiation [48]. Another widely used reporter gene is GFP for fluorescent imaging (FLI) [49, 50]. Encouraging results have been found by Song et al. [51], showing that implanted GFP-positive cells could survive in the liver for up to 18 weeks and accounted for approximately 40–50 % of regenerative hepatocytes. However, the limitation of relatively low spatial resolution is similar to that of dye-mediated optical imaging. NIS is a transmembrane glycoprotein mainly expressed in the thyroid glands and mediates the process of iodine intake. Reporter genes for nuclear imaging based on NIS (PET or SPECT) are also available with the advantage of quantitative analysis and potential clinical prospects [52, 53]. Other types of available reporter genes include galactosidase genes (LacZ) for bioluminescence imaging [54] and HSV-tk for PET [55].
Table 3

Intrahepatic animal stem cell tracking studies with reporter genes

Study

Species (n)

Animal model

Cell type

Reporter genes

Reporter probe

Delivery/number of cells infused

Results

Duan et al., 2007 [45]

Mice (12)

NOD-SCID model

Xenogeneic EPCs

Luc

BLI

Directly intrahepatic into parenchyma/105

Detection of luminescent stem cells for at least 1 week

Boeykens et al., 2013 [46]

Rats (13)

PHx of MCD-induced steatotic liver model

Allogeneic BMSCs

Luc

BLI

Portal vein and tail vein/106

Detection of luminescent stem cells for 24 hours

Intraportal cell injection was superior to intravenous cell injection for homing capacity

Di Rocco et al., 2012 [48]

Mice (32)

CCl4-induced ALF model

Autologous AD-MSCs

Fluc

BLI

Intrasplenic injection/105

Luciferase-positive cells were visible for 2 months

Labeled cells exhibited a hepatocyte-like morphology and AFP expression was detected at injured sites

Li et al., 2009 [49]

Mice (unknown)

CCl4-induced liver cirrhosis model

Allogeneic BMSCs

EGFP

FLI

Tail vein/106

Labeled cells were detected for up to 6 weeks

The presence of double-positive cells for EGFP and α-SMA in the fibrous liver demonstrated the homing ability of BMSCs to damaged tissue and differentiation potential into myofibroblasts

Song et al., 2004 [51]

Mice (unknown)

PHx-induced liver injury model

Autologous LPCs

GFP

FLI

Intrasplenic injection/106

GFP-positive cells could be visualized for up to 18 weeks, and accounted for 40–50 % of regenerative hepatocytes

Knoop et al., 2011 [52]

Mice (47)

Huh7-induced HCC model

Xenogeneic BMSCs

NIS

123I (γ-camera) 124I (PET)

Tail vein/105

NIS-MSC mediated concentration of iodine radioisotopes was detected in 74 % of tumors with a half-life period of 4 hours

124I as reporter probe for PET imaging provided better resolution and sensitivity

Knoop et al., 2013 [53]

Mice (57)

Huh7-induced HCC model

Xenogeneic BMSCs

NIS

131I (γ-camera)

Tail vein/105

NIS-MSC mediated concentration of radioisotopes was detected in 67 % of tumors with a half-life period of 3.7 hours

Kanazawa et al., 2011 [54]

Rats (24)

I/R injury model

Allogeneic BMSCs

LacZ Luc

X-gal (microscope) (BLI)

Portal vein/106

BLI and histological findings showed that injected stem cells survived in the remnant liver for up to 168 hours

LacZ-positive stem cells were mainly located around the periportal regions

NOD-SCID nonobese diabetic–severe combined immunodeficiency disease, EPC endothelial progenitor cell, Luc luciferase, BLI bioluminescence imaging, PHx partial hepatectomy, MCD methionine/choline-deficient, BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell, CCl4 carbon tetrachloride, ALF acute liver failure, AD-MSC adipose-derived mesenchymal cell, Fluc firefly luciferase, AFP alpha fetal protein, EGFP enhanced green fluorescent protein, FLI fluorescence imaging, α-SMA alpha smooth muscle actin, LPC liver progenitor cell, GFP green fluorescent protein, HCC hepatic cellular cancer, NIS sodium iodide symporter, PET positron emission tomography, I/R ischemia–reperfusion, LacZ galactosidase genes

Because gene transduction into the host cells is stable and well tolerated, the signals radiating from reporter genes cannot be easily diffused or diluted with cell division, which is appropriate for long-term in-vivo tracing and monitoring [5]. Since this labeling technique requires molecular manipulations of the stem cells before transplantation, concerns over theoretical risks and feasibility for clinical application must be fully assessed, including: viral vector toxicity from xenogenic materials; the expression stability of reporter genes before migrating to the liver; precise integration into the injured liver as much as possible; hepatic immunogenic responses towards accumulation of reporter gene products; and ethical problems [56, 57].

Y-chromosome marker

The Y-chromosome marker has been utilized in a few sex-matched studies in which cells isolated from male donors were grafted to female recipients, thus allowing us to track the biological actions of transplanted stem cells via the molecular-cytogenetic FISH technique For example, a clinical cell imaging study was successfully performed in four female patients with confirmed alcoholic hepatitis, who underwent cross-sex stem cell transplantation [58]. FISH for the Y chromosome with immunostaining demonstrated the differentiation ability of BMSCs into hepatic myofibroblasts. Using a Y-chromosome-selective probe, the tracing method avoids the latent problems of viral vector transduction, transgenic labeling, cytotoxic effects, signal decay, or diffusion, making it fairly suitable for the long-term assessment of donor cells in recipients [59]. The technique is also easy to perform with high labeling efficiency, and is barely affected by tissue types and phenotype changes. However, the fatal weakness is that Y-chromosome marker cannot apply to autologous transplantation or female donors.

Conclusion and perspectives

To date, quite a few clinical trials of stem cell-based therapies have been performed focusing on liver regeneration [60, 61]. However, most cases are in the early phase I/II stage. Improved liver function has been found to be small in some studies, and an average of only 55 % patients showed amelioration in histological tissues [62]. There is still a long way to go until the widespread application of stem cell therapies in clinical practice, which prompts us to translate from bedside to bench to furnish deeper insights into the fate of stem cells and treatment mechanisms. Imaging processes using direct labeling strategies and reporter genes enable us to elucidate key issues, including cellular survival, migration, biodistribution, and hepatogenic differentiation. The existing imaging strategies differ mainly in terms of depth penetration, spatial and temporal resolution, sensitivity, quantitative degree, molecular probes, and cost of imaging modalities. Every tracing technique has its inherent advantages and shortcomings owing to different mechanisms of action (Figs. 1 and 2). MRI is excellent for spatial resolution and soft-tissue contrast, but is far less sensitive than fluorescent imaging (10–9–10–12 mol/l) or radionuclide imaging (10–11–10–12 mol/l) [18]. Optical imaging allows for multilabeling and high-efficiency tracking, but is limited by unstable photobleaching and weak tissue penetration. The persistent expression of reporter genes is fit for long-term tracing. Nevertheless, concerns about the ionizing radiations from radioisotopes, leakage or diffusion of tracers, and immunogenic and ethical issues with reporter genes still require attention. A qualitative outline comparing some general features of these imaging modalities is presented in Table 4. The ideal imaging method for each study must be determined in light of the high sensitivity, resolution, and tracing time.
Fig. 1

Schematic of direct labeling techniques for intrahepatic stem cell tracing. Stem cells are incubated with different tracer agents that enter the cells through various mechanisms, such as passive transport (fluorescent dyes, 111In-oxine, 99mTc), endocytosis (SIPO), and uptake transporter (18F-FDG). Fluorescent dyes can respectively bind to the cell nucleus, membrane, or cytoplasm. Magnetofection and MEP are two methods for intracytoplasmatic magnetic labeling using SPIO. Tagged stem cells can be detected by imaging equipments, such as fluorescent microscope, MRI, PET, or SPECT. TA transfection agent, SPIO superparamagnetic iron oxides, 18 F-FDG 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, MEP magnetoelectroporation, DAPI 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, BrdU 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine, DiR 1,1-dioctadecyl-3,3,3,3-tetramethylindotricarbocyanine iodide, CFSE carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl amino ester

Fig. 2

Schematic of reporter gene labeling for intrahepatic stem cell tracing. The reporter genes are transferred into the genome of target stem cells via transfection, transduction with viral vectors, or acquisition from GM animals. Activated by promoters, reporter genes encode various reporter proteins, such as fluorophores (e.g., GFP), enzymes (e.g., luciferase), transporter proteins (e.g., NIS), and so forth. Generated signals are captured by different imaging devices; for example, optical charge-coupled device, SPECT, or PET. GM genetically modified, GFP green fluorescent protein, NIS sodium iodide symporter

Table 4

Comparison of characteristics of imaging modalities available for intrahepatic stem cell tracing

Imaging technique

Probes

Imaging methods

Sensitivity

Spatial resolution

Temporal resolution

Penetration depth

Quantitative degree

Cost

Fluorescence imaging

Fluorophores, QDs, GFP/RFP

Direct labeling/reporter genes

+++

+

++

+

+to++

$

Bioluminescence imaging

Luciferin

Reporter genes

+++

+

++

+

+to++

$

MRI

SPIO, gadolinium

Direct labeling

+

+++

+

+++

++

 

SPECT

111In, 99mTc, 131I

Direct labeling/reporter genes

++

++

+

+++

++

$$

PET

18F, 124I

Direct labeling/reporter genes

++

++

+

+++

+++

$$$

+ common, ++ good, +++ excellent; $ cheap, $$ expensive, $$$ very expensive

QD quantum dot, GFP green fluorescent protein, RFP red fluorescent protein, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, SPIO superparamagnetic iron oxides, SPECT single photon emission computed tomography PET positron emission tomography

Noninvasive in-vivo imaging of stem cells stands at a critical point during the transition of treatment from bench to bedside. Clinical barriers will remain until the optimal cell types, timing of cellular graft, therapeutic dose, delivery route, and choices of endpoints are addressed. Therefore, it is vital to implement more large-scale clinical studies combined with imaging strategies to explore the trail of cell tracking in patients with liver diseases in the near future. Novel imaging strategies or combining imaging modalities might help to shed new light on the biological behavior of stem cells and the therapeutic mechanisms by which transplanted stem cells improve hepatic function and promote self-rehabilitation.

Abbreviations

AFP: 

Alpha fetal protein

BLI: 

Bioluminescence imaging

BMSC: 

Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell

CCD: 

Charge-coupled device

CPN: 

Conjugated polymer-based water-dispersible nanoparticle

FISH: 

Fluorescence in-situ hybridization

FLI: 

Fluorescent imaging

GFP: 

Green fluorescent protein

HSV-tk: 

Herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase

iPSC: 

Induced pluripotent stem cell

LacZ: 

Galactosidase genes

MEP: 

Magnetoelectroporation

MNP: 

Fluorescent magnetic nanoparticle

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

NIS: 

Sodium iodide symporter

OLT: 

Orthotopic liver transplant

PET: 

Positron emission tomography

QD: 

Quantum dot

SPECT: 

Single-photon emission computed tomography

SPIO: 

Superparamagnetic iron oxides

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the laboratory members for their contributions.

Authors’ contributions

JC and LL contributed to the conception of this manuscript. PC, LF, and JW were responsible for the literature review. PC and CH drafted the manuscript and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases; State Key Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine; First Affiliated Hospital; Zhejiang University

References

  1. Pai M, Zacharoulis D, Milicevic MN, Helmy S, Jiao LR, Levicar N, et al. Autologous infusion of expanded mobilized adult bone marrow-derived CD34+ cells into patients with alcoholic liver cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(8):1952–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Terai S, Ishikawa T, Omori K, Aoyama K, Marumoto Y, Urata Y, et al. Improved liver function in patients with liver cirrhosis after autologous bone marrow cell infusion therapy. Stem Cells. 2006;24(10):2292–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Vassilopoulos G, Wang PR, Russell DW. Transplanted bone marrow regenerates liver by cell fusion. Nature. 2003;422(24):901–4.Google Scholar
  4. Peng L, Xie DY, Lin BL, Liu J, Zhu HP, Xie C, et al. Autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in liver failure patients caused by hepatitis B: short-term and long-term outcomes. Hepatology. 2011;54(3):820–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Mathiasen AB, Kastrup J. Non-invasive in-vivo imaging of stem cells after transplantation in cardiovascular tissue. Therapeutics. 2013;3(8):561-72.Google Scholar
  6. Yang PC. Is reliable in vivo detection of stem cell viability possible in a large animal model of myocardial injury? Circulation. 2012;126(4):388–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Ma H-C. Targeted migration of mesenchymal stem cells modified with CXCR4 to acute failing liver improves liver regeneration. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(40):14884.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Sun S, Chen G, Xu M, Qiao Y, Zheng S. Differentiation and migration of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells transplanted through the spleen in rats with portal hypertension. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83523.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Li P, Zhang R, Sun H, Chen L, Liu F, Yao C, et al. PKH26 can transfer to host cells in vitro and vivo. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22(2):340–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ikeda E, Yagi K, Kojima M, Yagyuu T, Ohshima A, Sobajima S, et al. Multipotent cells from the human third molar: feasibility of cell-based therapy for liver disease. Differentiation. 2008;76(5):495–505.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhan Y, Wang Y, Wei L, Chen H, Cong X, Fei R, et al. Differentiation of hematopoietic stem cells into hepatocytes in liver fibrosis in rats. Transplant Proc. 2006;38(9):3082–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Li GC, Ye QH, Dong QZ, Ren N, Jia HL, Qin LX. Mesenchymal stem cells seldomly fuse with hepatocellular carcinoma cells and are mainly distributed in the tumor stroma in mouse models. Oncol Rep. 2013;29(2):713–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ezzat T, Dhar DK, Malago M, Olde Damink SW. Dynamic tracking of stem cells in an acute liver failure model. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(6):507–16.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang H, Cheng Z, Tian M, Zhang H. In vivo imaging of embryonic stem cell therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(4):774–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Akhan E, Tuncel D, Akcali KC. Nanoparticle labeling of bone marrow-derived rat mesenchymal stem cells: their use in differentiation and tracking. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:298430.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Yukawa H, Watanabe M, Kaji N, Okamoto Y, Tokeshi M, Miyamoto Y, et al. Monitoring transplanted adipose tissue-derived stem cells combined with heparin in the liver by fluorescence imaging using quantum dots. Biomaterials. 2012;33(7):2177–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosen AB, Kelly DJ, Schuldt AJT, Lu J, Potapova IA, Doronin SV, et al. Finding fluorescent needles in the cardiac haystack: tracking human mesenchymal stem cells labeled with quantum dots for quantitative in vivo three-dimensional fluorescence analysis. Stem Cells. 2007;25(8):2128–38.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Massoud TF, Ganbgur SS. Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genome Res. 2002;12(1):47–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang Y, Xu C, Ow H. Commercial nanoparticles for stem cell labeling and tracking. Theranostics. 2013;3(8):544–60.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. de Vries IJ, Lesterhuis WJ, Barentsz JO, Verdijk P, van Krieken JH, Boerman OC, et al. Magnetic resonance tracking of dendritic cells in melanoma patients for monitoring of cellular therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(11):1407–13.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Kraitchman DL, Bulte JW. Imaging of stem cells using MRI. Basic Res Cardiol. 2008;103(2):105–13.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Pang P, Wu C, Gong F, Zhu K, Meng X, Cheng D, et al. Nanovector for gene transfection and MR imaging of mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2015;11(4):644–56.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhao J, Vykoukal J, Abdelsalam M, Recio-Boiles A, Huang Q, Qiao Y, et al. Stem cell-mediated delivery of SPIO-loaded gold nanoparticles for the theranosis of liver injury and hepatocellular carcinoma. Nanotechnology. 2014;25(40):405101.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewin M, Carlesso N, Tung C-H, Tang X-W, Cory D, Scadden DT, et al. Tat peptide-derivatized magnetic nanoparticles allow in vivo tracking and recovery of progenitor cells. Nat Biotech. 2000;18(4):410–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen XW, Zhu DJ, Ju YL, Zhou SF. Therapeutic effect of transplanting magnetically labeled bone marrow stromal stem cells in a liver injury rat model with 70 %-hepatectomy. Med Sci Monit. 2012;18(10):BR375–82.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang Q, Li K, Quan Q, Zhang G. R2* and R2 mapping for quantifying recruitment of superparamagnetic iron oxide-tagged endothelial progenitor cells to injured liver: tracking in vitro and in vivo. Int J Nanomed. 2014;9:1815–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Bos C, Delmas Y, Desmouliere A. In vivo MR imaging of intravascularly injected magnetically labeled mesenchymal stem cells in rat kidney and liver. Radiology. 2004;233(3):781–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cai J, Zhang X, Wang X, Li C, Liu G. In vivo MR imaging of magnetically labeled mesenchymal stem cells transplanted into rat liver through hepatic arterial injection. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2008;3(2):61–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhou B, Shan H, Li D, Jiang Z-B, Qian J-S, Zhu K-S, et al. MR tracking of magnetically labeled mesenchymal stem cells in rats with liver fibrosis. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(3):394–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Walczak P, Kedziorek DA, Gilad AA, Lin S, Bulte JW. Instant MR labeling of stem cells using magnetoelectroporation. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(4):769–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim TH, Kim JK, Shim W, Kim SY, Park TJ, Jung JY. Tracking of transplanted mesenchymal stem cells labeled with fluorescent magnetic nanoparticle in liver cirrhosis rat model with 3-T MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(7):1004–13.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Shenghong J, Teng G-J, Lu H, Yu Z, Zhang A, Chen F, et al. In vivo MR tracking of mesenchymal stem cells in rat liver after intrasplenic transplantation. Radiology. 2007;245:206–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Li Z, Suzuki Y, Huang M, Cao F, Xie X, Connolly AJ, et al. Comparison of reporter gene and iron particle labeling for tracking fate of human embryonic stem cells and differentiated endothelial cells in living subjects. Stem Cells. 2008;26(4):864–73.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Ebert SN, Taylor DG, Nguyen HL, Kodack DP, Beyers RJ, Xu Y, et al. Noninvasive tracking of cardiac embryonic stem cells in vivo using magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Stem Cells. 2007;25(11):2936–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu J, Zhou L, XingWu F. Tracking neural stem cells in patients with brain trauma. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2376–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Nighoghossian N, Wiart M, Cakmak S, Berthezene Y, Derex L, Cho TH, et al. Inflammatory response after ischemic stroke: a USPIO-enhanced MRI study in patients. Stroke. 2007;38(2):303–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Nguyen Patricia K, Riegler J, Wu JC. Stem cell imaging: from bench to bedside. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14(4):431–44.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Thakur ML, Segal AW, Louis L, Welch MJ, Hopkins J, Peters TJ. Indium-111-labeled cellular blood components: mechanism of labeling and intracellular location in human neutrophils. J Nucl Med. 1977;18(10):1022–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gholamrezanezhad A, Mirpour S, Bagheri M, Mohamadnejad M, Alimoghaddam K, Abdolahzadeh L, et al. In vivo tracking of 111In-oxine labeled mesenchymal stem cells following infusion in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Nucl Med Biol. 2011;38(7):961–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Couto BG, Goldenberg RC, da Fonseca LM, Thomas J, Gutfilen B, Resende CM, et al. Bone marrow mononuclear cell therapy for patients with cirrhosis: a Phase 1 study. Liver Int. 2011;31(3):391–400.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Li HY, Chien Y, Chen YJ, Chen SF, Chang YL, Chiang CH, et al. Reprogramming induced pluripotent stem cells in the absence of c-Myc for differentiation into hepatocyte-like cells. Biomaterials. 2011;32(26):5994–6005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Yuan J, Huafu K, Rob ZS, Wells RG, Pamela Z, Peter AM, et al. Determining the minimum number of detectable cardiac-transplanted 111 In-tropolone-labelled bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells by SPECT. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(19):4445.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharma V, Luker GD, Piwnica-Worms D. Molecular imaging of gene expression and protein function in vivo with PET and SPECT. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(4):336–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Ong HT, Federspiel MJ, Guo CM, Ooi LL, Russell SJ, Peng KW, et al. Systemically delivered measles virus-infected mesenchymal stem cells can evade host immunity to inhibit liver cancer growth. J Hepatol. 2013;59(5):999–1006.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Duan Y, Catana A, Meng Y, Yamamoto N, He S, Gupta S, et al. Differentiation and enrichment of hepatocyte-like cells from human embryonic stem cells in vitro and in vivo. Stem Cells. 2007;25:3058–68.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Boeykens N, Ponsaerts P, Linden AV, Berneman Z, Ysebaert D, Kathleen, et al. Injury-dependent retention of intraportally administered mesenchymal stromal cells following partial hepatectomy of steatotic liver does not lead to improved liver recovery. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69092.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Doerks T, Copley RR, Schultz J, Ponting CP, Bork P. Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genome Res. 2002;12(1):47–56.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Di Rocco G, Gentile A, Antonini A, Truffa S, Piaggio G, Capogrossi MC, et al. Analysis of biodistribution and engraftment into the liver of genetically modified mesenchymal stromal cells derived from adipose tissue. Cell Transplant. 2012;21(9):1997–2008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Li C, Kong Y, Wang H, Wang S, Yu H, Liu X, et al. Homing of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells mediated by sphingosine 1-phosphate contributes to liver fibrosis. J Hepatol. 2009;50(6):1174–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Cho JW, Lee CY, Ko Y. Therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing human forkhead box A2 gene in the regeneration of damaged liver tissues. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(8):1362–70.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Song S, Witek RP, Lu Y, Choi Y-K, Zheng D, Jorgenseq M, et al. GFP hepatology-ex vivo transduced liver progenitor cells as a platform for gene therapy in mice. Hepatology. 2004;40(4):918–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Knoop K, Kolokythas M, Klutz K, Willhauck MJ, Wunderlich N, Draganovici D, et al. Image-guided, tumor stroma-targeted 131I therapy of hepatocellular cancer after systemic mesenchymal stem cell-mediated NIS gene delivery. Mol Ther. 2011;19(9):1704–13.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Knoop K, Schwenk N, Dolp P, Willhauck MJ, Zischek C, Zach C, et al. Stromal targeting of sodium iodide symporter using mesenchymal stem cells allows enhanced imaging and therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hum Gene Ther. 2013;24(3):306–16.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Kanazawa H, Fujimoto Y, Teratani T, Iwasaki J, Kasahara N, Kouji, et al. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury in a rat model. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e19195.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu JC, Chen IY, Sundaresan G, Min J-J, De A, Qiao J-H, et al. Molecular imaging of cardiac cell transplantation in living animals using optical bioluminescence and positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2003;108(11):1302–5.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Kay MA, Glorioso JC, Naldini L. Viral vectors for gene therapy: the art of turning infectious agents into vehicles of therapeutics. Nat Med. 2001;7(1):33–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhou R, Acton PD, Ferrari VA. Imaging stem cells implanted in infarcted myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(10):2094–106.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Dalakas E, Newsome PN, Boyle S, Brown R, Pryde A, McCall S, et al. Bone marrow stem cells contribute to alcohol liver fibrosis in humans. Stem Cells Dev. 2010;19(9):1417–25.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Harvey AR, Symons NA, Pollett MA, Brooker GJF, Bartlett PF. Fate of adult neural precursors grafted to adult cortex monitored with a Y-chromosome marker. Neuroreport. 1997;8(18):3939–43.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Houlihan DD, Newsome PN. Critical review of clinical trials of bone marrow stem cells in liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(2):438–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Margini C, Vukotic R, Brodosi L, Bernardi M, Andreone P. Bone marrow derived stem cells for the treatment of end-stage liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(27):9098–105.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Trounson A, McDonald C. Stem cell therapies in clinical trials: progress and challenges. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17(1):11–22.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement