Delivery of human mesenchymal adipose‐derived stem cells restores multiple urological dysfunctions in a rat model mimicking radical prostatectomy damages through tissue‐specific paracrine mechanisms

• Published in: Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) Ohio), 2016-02, Vol.34 (2), p.392-404
• Main Authors: Yiou, René, Mahrouf‐Yorgov, Meriem, Trébeau, Céline, Zanaty, Marc, Lecointe, Cécile, Souktani, Richard, Zadigue, Patricia, Figeac, Florence, Rodriguez, Anne‐Marie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adipose Tissue - metabolism; Adipose Tissue - pathology; Animals; Bone marrow; Cell therapy; Disease Models, Animal; Erectile dysfunction; Heterografts; Humans; Male; Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation; Mesenchymal stem cells; Mesenchymal Stromal Cells - metabolism; Mesenchymal Stromal Cells - pathology; Paracrine Communication; Postoperative Complications - metabolism; Postoperative Complications - pathology; Postoperative Complications - therapy; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy - adverse effects; Radical prostatectomy; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Sexual disorders; Stem cells; Urethra - metabolism; Urethra - pathology; Urinary incontinence
• ISSN: 1066-5099; 1549-4918
• DOI: 10.1002/stem.2226

Urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED) are the most common functional urological disorders and the main sequels of radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy holds promise for repairing tissue damage due to RP. Because animal studies accurately replicating post‐RP clinical UI and ED are lacking, little is known about the mechanisms underlying the urological benefits of MSC in this setting. To determine whether and by which mechanisms MSC can repair damages to both striated urethral sphincter (SUS) and penis in the same animal, we delivered human multipotent adipose stem cells, used as MSC model, in an immunocompetent rat model replicating post‐RP UI and ED. In this model, we demonstrated by using noninvasive methods in the same animal from day 7 to day 90 post‐RP injury that MSC administration into both the SUS and the penis significantly improved urinary continence and erectile function. The regenerative effects of MSC therapy were not due to transdifferentiation and robust engraftment at injection sites. Rather, our results suggest that MSC benefits in both target organs may involve a paracrine process with not only soluble factor release by the MSC but also activation of the recipient's secretome. These two effects of MSC varied across target tissues and damaged‐cell types. In conclusion, our work provides new insights into the regenerative properties of MSC and supports the ability of MSC from a single source to repair multiple types of damage, such as those seen after RP, in the same individual. Stem Cells 2016;34:392–404