4.6 Article

Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Olfactory Ensheathing Cells Promote Peripheral Nerve Regeneration in Rats

期刊

FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2019.00548

关键词

olfactory ensheathing cells; extracellular vesicles; peripheral nerve injury; nerve regeneration; functional recovery

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81972052, 81672148, 81802143]
  2. National Key Research and Development Plan [2016YFC1101700]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2014CB542206]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholar and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT1053, IRT13051]
  5. Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of PR China [201480]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulating evidence showed that extracellular vesicles (EVs) and their cargoes are important information mediators in the nervous system and have been proposed to play an important role in regulating regeneration. Moreover, many studies reported that olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) conditioned medium is capable of promoting nerve regeneration and functional recovery. However, the role of EVs derived from OECs in axonal regeneration has not been clear. Thereby, the present study was designed to firstly isolate EVs from OECs culture supernatants, and then investigated their role in enhancing axonal regeneration after sciatic nerve injury. In vitro studies showed that OECs-EVs promoted axonal growth of dorsal root ganglion (DRG), which is dose-dependent and relies on their integrity. In vivo studies further demonstrated that nerve conduit containing OECs-EVs significantly enhanced axonal regeneration, myelination of regenerated axons and neurologically functional recovery in rats with sciatic nerve injury. In conclusion, our results, for the first time, demonstrated that OECs-EVs are capable of promoting nerve regeneration and functional recovery after peripheral nerve injuries in rats.

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