4.6 Review

Selective neuronal PTEN deletion: can we take the brakes off of growth without losing control?

期刊

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 1201-1203

出版社

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.189160

关键词

PTEN; mTOR; spinal cord injury; corticospinal tract; motor system; axon regeneration; recovery of function

资金

  1. [NS073857]
  2. [5T32GM008620]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The limited ability for injured adult axons to regenerate is a major cause for limited functional recovery after injury to the nervous system, motivating numerous efforts to uncover mechanisms capable of enhancing regeneration potential. One promising strategy involves deletion or knockdown of the phosphatase and tensin (PTEN) gene. Conditional genetic deletion of PTEN before, immediately following, or several months after spinal cord injury enables neurons of the corticospinal tract (CST) to regenerate their axons across the lesion, which is accompanied by enhanced recovery of skilled voluntary motor functions mediated by the CST. Although conditional genetic deletion or knockdown of PTEN in neurons enables axon regeneration, PTEN is a well-known tumor suppressor and mutations of the PTEN gene disrupt brain development leading to neurological abnormalities including macrocephaly, seizures, and early mortality. The long-term consequences of manipulating PTEN in the adult nervous system, as would be done for therapeutic intervention after injury, are only now being explored. Here, we summarize evidence indicating that long-term deletion of PTEN in mature neurons does not cause evident pathology; indeed, cortical neurons that have lived without PTEN for over 1 year appear robust and healthy. Studies to date provide only a first look at potential negative consequences of PTEN deletion or knockdown, but the absence of any detectable neuropathology supports guarded optimism that interventions to enable axon regeneration after injury are achievable.

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