4.5 Article

Neutralization of ciliary neurotrophic factor reduces astrocyte production from transplanted neural stem cells and promotes regeneration of corticospinal tract fibers in spinal cord injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 84, 期 8, 页码 1669-1681

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.21079

关键词

ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF); astrogliosis; spinal cord injury (SCI); neural stem cells (NSC); transplantation

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS 19259] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transplantation of neural stem cells (NSC) into lesioned spinal cord offers the potential to increase regeneration by replacing lost neurons or oligodendrocytes. The majority of transplanted NSC, however, typically differentiate into astrocytes that may exacerbate glial scar formation. Here we show that blocking of ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) with anti-CNTF antibodies after NSC transplant into spinal cord injury (SCI) resulted in a reduction of glial scar formation by 8 weeks. Treated animals had a wider distribution of transplanted NSC compared with the control animals. The NSC around the lesion coexpressed either nestin or markers for neurons, oligodendrocytes, or astrocytes. Approximately 20% fewer glial fibrillary acidic protein-positive/bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU)-positive cells were seen at 2, 4, and 8 weeks postgrafting, compared with the control animals. Furthermore, more CNPase(+)/BrdU(+) cells were detected in the treated group at 4 and 8 weeks. These CNPase(+) or Rip(+) mature oligodendrocytes were seen in close proximity to host corticospinal tract (CST) and 5HT(+) serotonergic axon. We also demonstrate that the number of regenerated CST fibers both at the lesion and at caudal sites in treated animals was significantly greater than that in the control animals at 8 weeks. We suggest that the blocking of CNTF at the beginning of SCI provides a more favorable environment for the differentiation of transplanted NSC and the regeneration of host axons. (c) 2006 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

4.5
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