4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Hippocampal neuron number is unchanged 1 year after fractionated whole-brain irradiation at middle age

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.015

关键词

fractionated WBI; middle age; hippocampus; neuron number; Fischer 344 x brown Norway rats

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA112593, R01CA119990] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA112593-03, R01 CA119990-02, CA112593, R01 CA112593, R01 CA119990, CA119990] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine whether hippocampal neurons are lost 12 months after middle-aged rats received a fractionated course of whole-brain irradiation (WBI) that is expected to be biologically equivalent to the regimens used clinically in the treatment of brain tumors. Methods and Materials: Twelve-month-old Fischer 344 X Brown Norway male rats were divided into WBI and control (CON) groups (n = 6 per group). Anesthetized WBI rats received 45 Gy of (137)CS gamma rays delivered as 9 5-Gy fractions twice per week for 4.5 weeks. Control rats were anesthetized but not irradiated. Twelve months after WBI completion, all rats were anesthetized and perfused with paraformaldehyde, and hippocampal sections were immunostained with the neuron-specific antibody NeuN. Using unbiased stereology, total neuron number and the volume of the neuronal and neuropil layers were determined in the dentate gyrus, CA3, and CA1 subregions of hippocampus. Results: No differences in tissue integrity or neuron distribution were observed between the WBI and CON groups. Moreover, quantitative analysis demonstrated that neither total neuron number nor the volume of neuronal or neuropil layers differed between the two groups for any subregion. Conclusions: Impairment on a hippocampal-dependent learning and memory test occurs 1 year after fractionated WBI at middle age. The same WBI regimen, however, does not lead to a loss of neurons or a reduction in the volume of hippocampus. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据