4.4 Article

Blockade of P2 Nucleotide Receptors After Spinal Cord Injury Reduced the Gliotic Response and Spared Tissue

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 167-176

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12031-011-9567-6

Keywords

Glial scar; PPADS; Suramin; Spare tissue; Trauma; Purinergic

Funding

  1. NIH-MRISP [2 R24 MH 48190-14]
  2. NIH-SNRP [NS39405]
  3. MBRS-SCORE [S06-GM008224]
  4. MBRS-RISE [GM-68138]
  5. UPR School of Medicine
  6. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [1U54RR026139-01A1]
  7. National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spinal cord injury (SCI) triggers a sequel of events commonly associated with cell death and dysfunction of glias and neurons surrounding the lesion. Although astrogliosis and glial scar formation have been involved in both damage and repair processes after SCI, their role remains controversial. Our goal was to investigate the effects of the P2 receptors antagonists, PPADS and suramin, in the establishment of the reactive gliosis and the formation of the glial scar. Molecular biology, immunohistochemistry, spared tissue, and locomotor behavioral studies were used to evaluate astrogliosis, in adult female Sprague-Dawley rats treated with P2 antagonists after moderate injury with the NYU impactor device. Semi-quantitative RT-PCR confirmed the presence of P2Y(1,) P2Y(2,) P2Y(4,) P2Y(6,) P2Y(12), and P2X(2) receptors in the adult spinal cord. Immunohistochemistry studies confirmed a significant decrease in GFAP-labeled cells at the injury epicenter as well as a decrease in spared tissue after treatment with the antagonists. Functional open field testing revealed no significant locomotor score differences between treated and control animals. Our work is consistent with studies suggesting that astrogliosis is an important event after SCI that limits tissue damage and lesion spreading.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available