4.3 Article

Unmyelinated Axons Show Selective Rostrocaudal Pathology in the Corpus Callosum After Traumatic Brain Injury

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NEN.0b013e3182482590

关键词

Axonal injury; Corpus callosum; Stereology; Traumatic brain injury; Ultrastructure; Unmyelinated axons

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NS057758, NS056247, NS047463]
  2. Virginia Commonwealth Neurotrauma Initiative [07-302F]
  3. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Center [NS047463]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Axonal injury is consistently observed after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Prior research has extensively characterized the post-TBI response in myelinated axons. Despite evidence that unmyelinated axons comprise a numerical majority of cerebral axons, pathologic changes in unmyelinated axons after TBI have not been systematically studied. To identify morphologic correlates of functional impairment of unmyelinated fibers after TBI, we assessed ultrastructural changes in corpus callosum axons. Adult rats received moderate fluid percussion TBI, which produced diffuse injury with no contusion. Cross-sectional areas of 13,797 unmyelinated and 3,278 intact myelinated axons were stereologically measured at survival intervals from 3 hours to 15 days after injury. The mean caliber of unmyelinated axons was significantly reduced at 3 to 7 days and recovered by 15 days, but the time course of this shrinkage varied among the genu, mid callosum, and splenium. Relatively large unmyelinated axons seemed to be particularly vulnerable. Injury-induced decreases in unmyelinated fiber density were also observed, but they were more variable than caliber reductions. By contrast, no significant morphometric changes were observed in myelinated axons. The finding of a preferential vulnerability in unmyelinated axons has implications for current concepts of axonal responses after TBI and for development of specifically targeted therapies.

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

4.3
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