4.5 Article

Glial cell loss, proliferation and replacement in the contused murine spinal cord

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1711-1724

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05390.x

关键词

adult; C57Bl/6 mouse; NG2(+) cell; spinal cord injury

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS035647, 5 F31 NS051086-02, T32 NS41218] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies in the rat have shown that contusive spinal cord injury (SCI) results in devastating pathology, including significant loss of mature oligodendrocytes and astrocytes even in spared white matter. Subsequently, there is increased proliferation of endogenous NG2(+) cells, postulated to contribute to replacement of mature glia chronically, which is important for functional recovery. Studies of mechanisms that stimulate endogenous progenitor cells would be facilitated by using mouse models with naturally occurring and genetically engineered mutations. To determine whether the murine response is similar to that in the rat, we performed contusive SCI on adult female C57Bl/6 mice at the T8-9 level. Animals received bromodeoxyuridine injections in the first week following injury and were killed at 1, 3, 4, 7 or 28 days postinjury (DPI). The overall loss of macroglia and the temporal-spatial response of NG2(+) cells after SCI in the (C57Bl/6) mouse was very similar to that in the (Sprague-Dawley) rat. By 24 h after SCI nearly half of the macroglia in spared ventral white matter had been lost. Cell proliferation was increased at 1-7 DPI, peaking at 3-4 DPI. Dividing cells included NG2(+) cells and Cd11b(+) macrophages and microglia. Furthermore, cells dividing in the first week expressed markers of mature glia at 28 DPI. The similarities in endogenous progenitor cell response to SCI in the mouse and rat suggest that this is a fundamental injury response, and that transgenic mouse models may be used to further probe how this cellular response to SCI might be enhanced to improve recovery after SCI.

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

4.5
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