4.7 Article

Chondroitinase ABC enhances axonal regrowth through Schwann cell-seeded guidance channels after spinal cord injury

Journal

FASEB JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 194-196

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1096/fj.03-0196fje

Keywords

chondroitin sulfates; regeneration; transplantation; Schwann cells

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [NS36350]
  2. International Spinal Research Trust
  3. Daniel Heumann Fund for Spinal Cord Research
  4. Hong Kong Research Grants Council [HKU328/93M, HKU7355/00M]
  5. Croucher Foundation Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Grafting of Schwann cell-seeded channels into hemisected adult rat thoracic spinal cords has been tested as a strategy to bridge the injured cord. Despite success in guiding axonal growth into the graft, regeneration across the distal graft-host interface into the host spinal cord was limited. We hypothesized that chondroitin sulfate (CS) glycoforms deposited at the gliotic front of the interface constitute a molecular barrier to axonal growth into the host cord. Because CS glycoforms deposited by purified astrocytes in vitro were removable by digestion with chondroitinase ABC, we attempted to achieve likewise by infusion of the enzyme to the host side of the interface. By I month post-treatment, significant numbers of regenerating axons crossed an interface that was subdued in macrophage/microglia reaction and decreased in CS-immunopositivity. The axons extended as far into the caudal cord as 5 mm, in contrast to nil in vehicle-infused controls. Fascicular organizations of axon-Schwann cell units within the regenerated tissue cable were better-preserved in enzyme-treated cords than in vehicle-infused controls. We conclude that CS glycoforms deposited during gliosis at the distal graft-host interface could be cleared by the in vivo action of chondroitinase ABC to improve prospects of axonal regeneration into the host spinal cord.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available