4.7 Article

Age-Dependent Remarkable Regenerative Potential of the Dentate Gyrus Provided by Intrinsic Stem Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 974-995

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1010-19.2019

关键词

adult neurogenesis; dentate gyrus; hippocampal plasticity; neural stem cells; regeneration; VEGF

资金

  1. European Council Research Project VASNICHE Grant [322692]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [322692] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple insults to the brain lead to neuronal cell death, thus raising the question to what extent can lost neurons be replenished by adult neurogenesis. Here we focused on the hippocampus and especially the dentate gyrus (DG), a vulnerable brain region and one of the two sites where adult neuronal stem cells (NSCs) reside. While adult hippocampal neurogenesis was extensively studied with regard to its contribution to cognitive enhancement, we focused on their underestimated capability to repair a massively injured, nonfunctional DG. To address this issue, we inflicted substantial DG-specific damage in mice of either sex either by diphtheria toxin-based ablation of >50% of mature DG granule cells (GCs) or by prolonged brain-specific VEGF overexpression culminating in extensive, highly selective loss of DG GCs (thereby also reinforcing the notion of selective DG vulnerability). The neurogenic system promoted effective regeneration by increasing NSCs proliferation/survival rates, restoring a nearly original DG mass, promoting proper rewiring of regenerated neurons to their afferent and efferent partners, and regaining of lost spatial memory. Notably, concomitantly with the natural age-related decline in the levels of neurogenesis, the regenerative capacity of the hippocampus also subsided with age. The study thus revealed an unappreciated regenerative potential of the young DG and suggests hippocampal NSCs as a critical reservoir enabling recovery from catastrophic DG damage.

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

4.7
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