4.5 Article

Increased Survival and Reinnervation of Cervical Motoneurons by Riluzole after Avulsion of the C7 Ventral Root

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 27, 期 12, 页码 2273-2282

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2010.1445

关键词

avulsion; cell death; motoneuron; regeneration; riluzole; spinal cord

资金

  1. Sir Samuel Scott of Yews Trust
  2. Wellcome Trust [054131, 069652]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although adult motoneurons do not die if their axons are injured at some distance from the cell body, they are unable to survive injury caused by ventral root avulsion. Some of the injured motoneurons can be rescued if the ventral root is re-inserted into the spinal cord. Brachial plexus injuries that involve the complete or partial avulsion of one or more cervical ventral roots can be treated successfully only if satisfactory numbers of motoneurons remain alive following such an injury at the time of reconstructive surgery. Here we investigated the various strategies that could be used to rescue injured rat cervical motoneurons. The seventh cervical ventral root (C7) was avulsed and various therapeutic approaches were applied to induce motoneuronal survival and regeneration. Avulsion of the root without reimplantation resulted in very low numbers of surviving motoneurons (65 +/- 8 SEM), while treatment of the injured motoneurons with riluzole resulted in high numbers of surviving motoneurons (637 +/- 26 SEM). When the C7 ventral root was reimplanted or a peripheral nerve implant was used to guide the regenerating axons to a muscle, considerable numbers of motoneurons regenerated their axons (211 +/- 15 SEM and 274 +/- 28 SEM, respectively). Much greater numbers of axons regenerated when reimplantation was followed by riluzole treatment (573 +/- 9 SEM). These results show that injured adult motoneurons can be rescued by riluzole treatment, even if they cannot regenerate their axons. Reinnervation of the peripheral targets can also be further improved with riluzole treatment.

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