4.5 Article

Dynamics of the inflammatory response after murine spinal cord injury revealed by flow cytometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 86, 期 9, 页码 1944-1958

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.21659

关键词

spinal cord injury; neuroimmunology; inflammation; neutrophils; monocytes/macrophages microglia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal cord injury (SCI) triggers a robust inflammatory response that contributes in part to the secondary degeneration of spared tissue. Here, we use flow cytometry to quantify the inflammatory response after SCI. Besides its objective evaluation, flow cytometry allows for levels of particular markers to be documented that further aid in the identification of cellular subsets. Analyses of blood from SCI mice for CD45 (common leukocyte antigen), CD11b (complement receptor-3), Gr-1 (neutrophil/monocyte marker), and CD3 (T-cell marker) revealed a marked increase in circulating neutrophils (CD45(high):Gr-1(high)) at 12 hr compared with controls. Monocyte density in blood increased at 24 hr, and in contrast, lymphocyte numbers were significantly decreased. Mirroring the early increase in neutrophils within the blood, flow analysis of the spinal cord lesion site revealed a significant (P < 0.01) and maintained increase in blood-derived leukocytes (CD45high :CD11b high) from 12 to 96 hr compared with sham-injured and naive controls. Importantly, this technique clearly distinguishes blood-derived neutrophils (CD45:Gr-1(high):F4/80(negative)) and monocyte/macrophages (CD45 high) from resident microglia (CD45(low)) and revealed that the majority of the blood-derived infiltrate were neutrophils. Our results highlight an assumed, but previously uncharacterized, marked and transient increase in leukocyte populations in blood early after SCI followed by the orchestrated invasion of neutrophils and monocytes into the injured cord. In contrast to mobilization of neutrophils, SCI induces lymphopenia that may contribute negatively to the overall outcome after spinal cord trauma. (C) 2008 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