4.6 Article

High-Resolution In-Vivo Analysis of Normal Brain Response to Cranial Irradiation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038366

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  2. Sickkids funding group b.r.a.i.n.child

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiation therapy (RT) is a widely accepted treatment strategy for many central nervous system (CNS) pathologies. However, despite recognized therapeutic success, significant negative consequences are associated with cranial irradiation (CR), which manifests months to years post-RT. The pathophysiology and molecular alterations that culminate in the long-term detrimental effects of CR are poorly understood, though it is thought that endothelial injury plays a pivotal role in triggering cranial injury. We therefore explored the contribution of bone marrow derived cells (BMDCs) in their capacity to repair and contribute to neo-vascularization following CR. Using high-resolution in vivo optical imaging we have studied, at single-cell resolution, the spatio-temporal response of BMDCs in normal brain following CR. We demonstrate that BMDCs are recruited specifically to the site of CR, in a radiation dose and temporal-spatial manner. We establish that BMDCs do not form endothelial cells but rather they differentiate predominantly into inflammatory cells and microglia. Most notably we provide evidence that more than 50% of the microglia in the irradiated region of the brain are not resident microglia but recruited from the bone marrow following CR. These results have invaluable therapeutic implications as BMDCs may be a primary therapeutic target to block acute and long-term inflammatory response following CR. Identifying the critical steps involved in the sustained recruitment and differentiation of BMDCs into microglia at the site of CR can provide new insights into the mechanisms of injury following CR offering potential therapeutic strategies to counteract the long-term adverse effects of CR.

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