4.6 Article

ISP and PAP4 peptides promote motor functional recovery after peripheral nerve injury

Journal

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages 1598-1605

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.294565

Keywords

axon; brachial plexus injury; crush injury; intracellular sigma peptide; motor function; PAP4; peripheral nerve; protection; regeneration; repair

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81971165]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2014CB542205]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ISP and PAP4 promote nerve regeneration and motor functional recovery after peripheral nerve injury in rats, suggesting their potential therapeutic effects in treating such injuries.
Both intracellular sigma peptide (ISP) and phosphatase and tensin homolog agonist protein (PAP4) promote nerve regeneration and motor functional recovery after spinal cord injury. However, the role of these two small peptides in peripheral nerve injury remains unclear. A rat model of brachial plexus injury was established by crush of the C6 ventral root. The rats were then treated with subcutaneous injection of PAP4 (497 mu g/d, twice per day) or ISP (11 mu g/d, once per day) near the injury site for 21 successive days. After ISP and PAP treatment, the survival of motoneurons was increased, the number of regenerated axons and neuromuscular junctions was increased, muscle atrophy was reduced, the electrical response of the motor units was enhanced and the motor function of the injured upper limbs was greatly improved in rats with brachial plexus injury. These findings suggest that ISP and PAP4 promote the recovery of motor function after peripheral nerve injury in rats. The animal care and experimental procedures were approved by the Laboratory Animal Ethics Committee of Jinan University of China (approval No. 20111008001) in 2011.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available