Evaluates Wharton's jelly mesenchymal stem cells in post-stroke recovery, suggesting innovative therapy options.
Background/Objectives: Modern approaches for post-stroke rehabilitation cover mechanistically different ways—from physiotherapy to digital technologies. Among these approaches, stem cell-based therapy represents probably the most complex but promising strategy. Methods: We discuss the current state-of-the-art of using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in post-stroke regenerative therapy. Despite relatively wide use of bone marrow and adipose tissue MSCs, these cells represent a more mature (“adult”) state, which limits their proliferative and regenerative potentials. Compared to the “adult” MSCs, less “mature” MSCs obtained from umbilical cord, specifically Wharton’s jelly MSCs (WJ-MSCs), demonstrate unique functional capabilities and are free from certain technical and ethical issues. Results: The molecular and cellular mechanisms of action of WJ-MSCs are thoroughly discussed in comparison with abundantly used “adult” types of MSCs. We also comparatively evaluate their preclinical and clinical application for treating post-stroke patients. Recent findings indicate that not only MSCs but also their secretome/exosomes (cell-free product) represent a therapeutically beneficial cellular drug in post-stroke recovery. Specially designed and carefully evaluated protocols, which preserve the bioactivity of the cell-free product intact, are mentioned. Neuroprotective and neuroreparative properties of cell-free products—secretome and exosomes—derived from Wharton’s jelly MSCs are summarized. Conclusions: Cell-free products obtained from WJ-MSCs are an innovative adjunct therapy for post-stroke disorders, despite certain challenges and limitations of this type of therapy still present. By further investigation of the molecular composition and biological mechanisms of the WJ-MSC secretome and exosomes, their clinical applicability in neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative pathologies will be promoted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ganina et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: