A feasibility study transplanting macrophages to a segmental nerve injury.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Promoting regeneration after segmental nerve injury repair is a challenge, but improving angiogenesis could be beneficial. Macrophages facilitate regeneration after injury by promoting angiogenesis. Our aim in this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effects of transplanting exogenous macrophages to a segmental nerve injury. METHODS: Bone marrow-derived cells were harvested from donor mice and differentiated to macrophages (BMDM), then suspended within fibrin hydrogels to facilitate BMDM transplantation. BMDM survival was characterized in vitro. The effect of this BMDM fibrin hydrogel construct at a nerve injury site was assessed using a mouse sciatic nerve gap injury. Mice were equally distributed to "fibrin+Mφ" (fibrin hydrogels containing culture medium and BMDM) or "fibrin" hydrogel control (fibrin hydrogels containing culture medium alone) groups. Flow cytometry (n = 3/group/endpoint) and immunohistochemical analysis (n = 5/group/endpoint) of the nerve gap region were performed at days 3, 5, and 7 after repair. RESULTS: Incorporating macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) improved BMDM survival and expansion. Transplanted BMDM survived for at least 7 days in a nerve gap (~40% retained at day 3 and ~15% retained at day 7). From transplantation, macrophage quantities within the nerve gap were elevated when comparing fibrin+Mφ with fibrin control (~25% vs. 3% at day 3 and ~14% vs. 6% at day 7). Endothelial cells increased by about fivefold within the nerve gap, and axonal extension into the nerve gap increased almost twofold for fibrin+Mφ compared with fibrin control. DISCUSSION: BMDM suspended within fibrin hydrogels at a nerve gap do not impair regeneration.

Loss of Gata1 decreased eosinophils, macrophages, and type 2 cytokines in regenerating nerve and delayed axon regeneration after a segmental nerve injury.

The immune system has garnered attention for its role in peripheral nerve regeneration, particularly as it pertains to regeneration across segmental injuries. Previous work demonstrated that eosinophils are recruited to regenerating nerve and express interleukin-4, amongst potential cytokines. These results suggest a direct role for eosinophils in promoting nerve regeneration. Therefore, we further considered eosinophils roles in nerve regeneration using a segmental nerve injury and Gata1 knockout (KO) mice, which are severely eosinophil deficient, compared to wild-type BALB/c mice (WT). Mice receiving a sciatic nerve gap injury demonstrated distinct cytokine expression and leukocytes within regenerating nerve. Compared to controls, Gata1 KO regenerated nerves contained decreased expression of type 2 cytokines, including Il-5 and Il-13, and decreased recruitment of eosinophils and macrophages. At this early time point during ongoing regeneration, the macrophages within Gata1 KO nerves also demonstrated significantly less M2 polarization compared to controls. Subsequently, motor and sensory axon regeneration across the gap injury was decreased in Gata1 KO compared to WT during ongoing nerve regeneration. Over longer observation to allow for more complete nerve regeneration, behavioral recovery measured by grid-walk assessment was not different comparing groups but modestly delayed in Gata1 KO compared to WT. The extent of final axon regeneration was not different amongst groups. Our data provide additional evidence suggesting eosinophils contribute to nerve regeneration across a nerve gap injury, but are not essential to regeneration in this context. Our evidence also suggests eosinophils may regulate cytokines that promote distinct macrophage phenotypes and axon regeneration.