4.5 Article

Regional Heterogeneity in Astrocyte Responses Following Contusive Spinal Cord Injury in Mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 518, 期 8, 页码 1370-1390

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.22282

关键词

progenitor cell; central canal, nestin; brain lipid binding protein

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 NS043246, P30-NS045748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Astrocytes and their precursors respond to spinal cord injury (SCI) by proliferating, migrating, and altering phenotype. This contributes to glial scar formation at the lesion border and gliosis in spared gray and white matter. The present study was undertaken to evaluate astrocyte changes over time and determine when and where interventions might be targeted to alter the astrocyte response. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) was administered to mice 3 days after SCI, and cells expressing BrdU and the astrocyte marker, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), were counted at 3, 7, and 49 days post-injury (DPI) BrdU-labeled cells accumulated at the lesion border by 7 DPI and approximately half of these expressed GFAP In spared white matter, the total number of BrdU+ cells decreased, while the percentage of BrdU+ cells expressing GFAP increased at 49 DPI. Phenotypic changes were examined using the progenitor marker nestin, the radial glial marker, brain lipid binding protein (BLBP), and GFAP. Nestin was upregulated by 3 DPI and declined between 7 and 49 DPI in all regions, and GFAP increased and remained above naive levels at all timepoints. BLBP increased early and remained high along the lesion border and spared white matter, but was expressed transiently by cells lining the central canal and in a unique population of small cells found within the lesion and in gray matter rostral and caudal to the border The results demonstrate that the astrocyte response to SCI is regionally heterogeneous, and suggests astrocyte populations that could be targeted by interventions J Comp Neurol. 518:1370 - 1390, 2010. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, 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

4.5
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