4.6 Article

Treatment of traumatic brain injury with thymosin beta(4) in rats Laboratory investigation

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 114, 期 1, 页码 102-115

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2010.4.JNS10118

关键词

angiogenesis; neurogenesis; rat; oligodendrogenesis; thymosin beta(4); traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. NIH [R01 NS62002, P01 NS42345]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [P01NS042345, R01NS062002] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of delayed thymosin beta(4) (T beta(4)) treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in rats. Methods. Young adult male Wistar rats were divided into the following groups: 1) sham group (6 rats); 2) TBI + saline group (9 rats); 3) and TBI + T beta(4) group (10 rats). Traumatic brain injury was induced by controlled cortical impact over the left parietal cortex. Thymosin beta(4) (6 mg/kg) or saline was administered intraperitoneally starting at Day 1 and then every 3 days for an additional 4 doses. Neurological function was assessed using a modified neurological severity score (mNSS), foot fault, and Morris water maze tests. Animals were killed 35 days after injury, and brain sections were stained for immunohistochemistry to assess angiogenesis, neurogenesis, and oligodendrogenesis after T beta(4) treatment. Results. Compared with the saline treatment, delayed T beta(4) treatment did not affect lesion volume but significantly reduced hippocampal cell loss, enhanced angiogenesis and neurogenesis in the injured cortex and hippocampus, increased oligodendrogenesis in the CA3 region, and significantly improved sensorimotor functional recovery and spatial learning. Conclusions. These data for the first time demonstrate that delayed administration of T beta(4) significantly improves histological and functional outcomes in rats with TBI, indicating that T beta(4) has considerable therapeutic potential for patients with TBI. (DOI: 10.3171/2010.4.JNS10118)

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

4.6
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