3.8 Review

Axonal regeneration in zebrafish spinal cord

Journal

REGENERATION
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 43-60

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/reg2.99

Keywords

axonal regeneration; central nervous system; peripheral nervous system; spinal cord injury (SCI); zebrafish

Funding

  1. DST, Government of India [EMR/2014/00536]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present review we discuss two interrelated events-axonal damage and repair-known to occur after spinal cord injury (SCI) in the zebrafish. Adult zebrafish are capable of regenerating axonal tracts and can restore full functionality after SCI. Unlike fish, axon regeneration in the adult mammalian central nervous system is extremely limited. As a consequence of an injury there is very little repair of disengaged axons and therefore functional deficit persists after SCI in adult mammals. In contrast, peripheral nervous system axons readily regenerate following injury and hence allow functional recovery both in mammals and fish. A better mechanistic understanding of these three scenarios could provide a more comprehensive insight into the success or failure of axonal regeneration after SCI. This review summarizes the present understanding of the cellular and molecular basis of axonal regeneration, in both the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system, and large scale gene expression analysis is used to focus on different events during regeneration. The discovery and identification of genes involved in zebrafish spinal cord regeneration and subsequent functional experimentation will provide more insight into the endogenous mechanism of myelination and remyelination. Furthermore, precise knowledge of the mechanism underlying the extraordinary axonal regeneration process in zebrafish will also allow us to unravel the potential therapeutic strategies to be implemented for enhancing regrowth and remyelination of axons in mammals.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available