4.5 Article

Neuroprotective and reparative effects of carotid body grafts in a chronic MPTP model of Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 902-915

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.06.001

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Neurotrophic effect; Neurorestoration; Neurodegeneration; Cell therapy; Carotid body; Neural transplantation

资金

  1. Spanish Government (FIS)
  2. Spanish Government (Red TERCEL)
  3. Spanish Government (CIBERNED)
  4. Spanish Government (MEC)
  5. Spanish Government (MICINN)
  6. Andalusian Government
  7. Marcelino Botin Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intrastriatal transplantation of dopaminergic carotid body (CB) cells ameliorates parkinsonism in animal models and, with less efficacy, in Parkinson's disease patients. CB-based cell therapy was initially proposed because of its high dopamine content. However, later studies suggested that its beneficial effect might be due to a trophic action exerted on nigrostriatal neurons. Compatible with this concept are the high levels of neurotrophic factors encountered in CB cells. To test experimentally this idea, unilateral striatal transplants were performed with a sham graft in the contralateral striatum, as a robust internal control. Thereafter, the dopaminergic neurotoxin 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6, -tetrahydropyridine was injected during 3 months. CB grafts protected from degeneration ipsilateral nigral dopaminergic neurons projecting to the transplant in a dose-dependent manner regarding size and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor expression. Grafts performed at different times after the onset of the neurotoxic treatment demonstrated with histological and behavioral methods protection and repair of the nigrostriatal pathway by CB transplants. This study provides a mechanistic explanation for the action of CB transplants on parkinsonian models. It should also help to improve cell therapy approaches to Parkinson's disease. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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