4.6 Review

Exosomes in Acquired Neurological Disorders: New Insights into Pathophysiology and Treatment

期刊

MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 9280-9293

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-018-1054-4

关键词

Acquired neurological disorders; Traumatic brain injury (TBI); Stroke; Spinal cord injury (SCI); Exosomes; Extracellular vesicles

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [ZIANR000027, ZIENR000016, ZIANR000033] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exosomes are endogenous nanovesicles that play critical roles in intercellular signaling by conveying functional genetic information and proteins between cells. Exosomes readily cross the blood-brain barrier and have promise as therapeutic delivery vehicles that have the potential to specifically deliver molecules to the central nervous system (CNS). This unique feature also makes exosomes attractive as biomarkers in diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutics in the context of multiple significant public health conditions, including acquired neurological disorders. The purpose of this review is to summarize the state of the science surrounding the relevance of extracellular vesicles (EVs), particularly exosomes, to acquire neurological disorders, specifically traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury (SCI), and ischemic stroke. In total, ten research articles were identified that examined exosomes in the context of TBI, SCI, or stroke; these manuscripts were reviewed and synthesized to further understand the current role of exosomes in the context of acquired neurological disorders. Of the ten published studies, four focused exclusively on TBI, one on both TBI and SCI, and five on ischemic stroke; notably, eight of the ten studies were limited to pre-clinical samples. The present review is the first to discuss the current body of knowledge surrounding the role of exosomes in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prognosis, as well as promising therapeutic strategies in TBI, SCI, and stroke research.

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