Replace, Reprogram, and Relay: A Framework for Glial Cell and Extracellular Vesicle Therapies in CNS Repair
5 affiliations
- 1The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
- 2The Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
- 3The Neuroscience Program, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
- 4Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Program, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
- 5The Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
Abstract
Glial cells shape inflammatory resolution, metabolic support, debris clearance, axonal preservation, and myelin repair after CNS injury and neurodegeneration. These functions have motivated two related but non-equivalent therapeutic strategies, either the transplantation and replacement of living glia or the delivery of glia-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs). A viable cell graft can persist, migrate, phagocytose, integrate with host tissue, and adapt its transcriptional and secretory programs after administration. EVs cannot reproduce these autonomous cellular functions, but they can transfer proteins, lipids, metabolites, and nucleic acids as finite, engineerable packages that may be repeated. Microglia provide the principal comparison because the same lineage can be transplanted, replaced, genetically engineered, or used to generate therapeutic EVs. Strategies targeting the microglial compartment include CNS-wide niche repopulation and pathology-responsive engineering, with early human evidence from hematopoietic transplantation in a small uncontrolled cohort with CSF1R-associated microgliopathy, whereas glial EV therapeutics remain predominantly preclinical. Producer-cell state is also critical because microglial EVs can support repair or propagate inflammatory and proteopathic signals. We compare glial cell and EV strategies across CNS trauma and neurodegeneration in terms of biological capability, evidence level, biodistribution, potency, manufacturing, and safety. The proposed framework separates two questions: (1) whether pathology requires replacement of a missing or intrinsically defective cellular population or function (Replace) versus changing the functional state of surviving recipient cells without replacing the population (Reprogram), and, when applicable, (2) what spatial and temporal delivery (Relay) is required, including whether exposure must be local and persistent or distributed and repeatable. Because matched cell-versus-EV studies are rare and the evidence base is asymmetric, this framework is a mechanistic guide for hypothesis generation rather than a ranking of platform efficacy in specific neurological injury or disease paradigms.
Related
- Portulaca oleracea L.-derived extracellular vesicle-like particles reprogram intestinal ILCs to alleviate inflammatory bowel disease and colitis-associated colorectal cancer
- M2 Macrophage‐Derived Small Extracellular Vesicle miR‐106a‐Loaded QCG Hydrogel Targets the RNF128‐LXR Pathway to Reprogram Chondrocyte Cholesterol Metabolism for Osteoarthritis Therapy
- Small extracellular vesicle signaling and mitochondrial transfer reprogram T helper cell function in human asthma
- Toward objective brain monitoring of cancer-related cognitive impairment: an extracellular vesicle–based conceptual framework
- AI-guided design and biomaterial integration for next-generation extracellular vesicle therapeutics: an evidence-weighted translational framework.
BibTeX
@article{ghosh2026replace,
title = {{Replace, Reprogram, and Relay: A Framework for Glial Cell and Extracellular Vesicle Therapies in CNS Repair}},
author = {Mousumi Ghosh and Damien D. Pearse},
journal = {Cells},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/cells15201851},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/15/20/1851},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Replace, Reprogram, and Relay: A Framework for Glial Cell and Extracellular Vesicle Therapies in CNS Repair
AU - Mousumi Ghosh
AU - Damien D. Pearse
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/12
JO - Cells
DO - 10.3390/cells15201851
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/15/20/1851
AB - Glial cells shape inflammatory resolution, metabolic support, debris clearance, axonal preservation, and myelin repair after CNS injury and neurodegeneration. These functions have motivated two related but non-equivalent therapeutic strategies, either the transplantation and replacement of living glia or the delivery of glia-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs). A viable cell graft can persist, migrate, phagocytose, integrate with host tissue, and adapt its transcriptional and secretory programs after administration. EVs cannot reproduce these autonomous cellular functions, but they can transfer proteins, lipids, metabolites, and nucleic acids as finite, engineerable packages that may be repeated. Microglia provide the principal comparison because the same lineage can be transplanted, replaced, genetically engineered, or used to generate therapeutic EVs. Strategies targeting the microglial compartment include CNS-wide niche repopulation and pathology-responsive engineering, with early human evidence from hematopoietic transplantation in a small uncontrolled cohort with CSF1R-associated microgliopathy, whereas glial EV therapeutics remain predominantly preclinical. Producer-cell state is also critical because microglial EVs can support repair or propagate inflammatory and proteopathic signals. We compare glial cell and EV strategies across CNS trauma and neurodegeneration in terms of biological capability, evidence level, biodistribution, potency, manufacturing, and safety. The proposed framework separates two questions: (1) whether pathology requires replacement of a missing or intrinsically defective cellular population or function (Replace) versus changing the functional state of surviving recipient cells without replacing the population (Reprogram), and, when applicable, (2) what spatial and temporal delivery (Relay) is required, including whether exposure must be local and persistent or distributed and repeatable. Because matched cell-versus-EV studies are rare and the evidence base is asymmetric, this framework is a mechanistic guide for hypothesis generation rather than a ranking of platform efficacy in specific neurological injury or disease paradigms.
SN - 2073-4409
ER -