4.3 Article

Oligodendrocyte Lineage and Subventricular Zone Response to Traumatic Axonal Injury in the Corpus Callosum

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1097/NEN.0000000000000009

关键词

Traumatic brain injury; Axonal damage; Corpus callosum; Diffusion tensor imaging; Oligodendrocyte progenitor; Redundant myelin; Regeneration

资金

  1. Department of Defense in the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine
  2. National Institute of Health [R01-NS047592]
  3. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [RG 4549A4/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traumatic brain injury frequently causes traumatic axonal injury (TAI) in white matter tracts. Experimental TAI in the corpus callosum of adult mice was used to examine the effects on oligodendrocyte lineage cells and myelin in conjunction with neuroimaging. The injury targeted the corpus callosum over the subventricular zone, a source of neural stem/progenitor cells. Traumatic axonal injury was produced in the rostral body of the corpus callosum by impact onto the skull at the bregma. During the first week after injury, magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging showed that axial diffusivity decreased in the corpus callosum and that corresponding regions exhibited significant axon damage accompanied by hypertrophic microglia and reactive astrocytes. Oligodendrocyte progenitor proliferation increased in the subventricular zone and corpus callosum. Oligodendrocytes in the corpus callosum shifted toward upregulation of myelin gene transcription. Plp/CreER(T):R26IAP reporter mice showed normal reporter labeling of myelin sheaths 0 to 2 days after injury but labeling was increased between 2 and 7 days after injury. Electron microscopy revealed axon degeneration, demyelination, and redundant myelin figures. These findings expand the cell types and responses to white matter injuries that inform diffusion tensor imaging evaluation and identify pivotal white matter changes after TAI that may affect axon vulnerability vs. recovery after brain injury.

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