4.6 Article

Spatial arrangement of microglia in hippocampus: A stereological study with astrocytes

期刊

GLIA
卷 55, 期 13, 页码 1334-1347

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/glia.20552

关键词

Ibal; S100 beta; point pattern analysis; optical disector

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microglia are classically considered to be immune cells in the brain, but have now been proven to be involved in neuronal activity as well. Here we stereologically analyzed the spatial arrangement of microglia in the mouse hippocampus. First, we estimated the numerical densities (NDs) of microglia identified by ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule 1 (Iba1). Despite that microglia appeared to be evenly distributed throughout the hippocampal area, the NDs demonstrated significant dorsoventral, interregional, and interlaminar differences. Briefly, the NDs in the ventral hippocampus were significantly lower in the CA3 region than in the CA1 region and dentate gyrus, although no interregional differences were detectable in the dorsal hippocampus. Both in the CA1 and CA3 regions, the NDs were significantly higher in the stratum lacunosum-moleculare than in the remaining layers. Next, we investigated the spatial patterns of distribution of Iba1-labeled microglia and S100 beta-labeled astrocytes. So far as we examined, the somato-somatic contacts were not seen among microglia or among astrocytes, whereas the close apposition between microglia and astrocytes were occasionally detected. The 3D point process analysis showed that the spatial distribution of microglia was significantly repulsive. Because the statistical territory of single microglia was larger than that estimated from process tracing, they are not likely to touch each other with their processes. Astrocytes were distributed slightly repulsively with overlapping areas. The 3D point process analysis also revealed a significant spatial attraction between microglia and astrocytes. The present findings provide a novel anatomical basis for glial research. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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