4.7 Article

Combining an autologous peripheral nervous system bridge and matrix modification by chondroitinase allows robust, functional regeneration beyond a hemisection lesion of the adult rat spinal cord

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 26, 期 28, 页码 7405-7415

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1166-06.2006

关键词

spinal cord injury; regeneration; chondroitinase; neurotransplantation; extracellular matrix; plasticity

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS25713, NS26380] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chondroitinase-ABC (ChABC) was applied to a cervical level 5 (C5) dorsal quadrant aspiration cavity of the adult rat spinal cord to degrade the local accumulation of inhibitory chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans. The intent was to enhance the extension of regenerated axons from the distal end of a peripheral nerve (PN) graft back into the C5 spinal cord, having bypassed a hemisection lesion at C3. ChABC-treated rats showed (1) gradual improvement in the range of forelimb swing during locomotion, with some animals progressing to the point of raising their forelimb above the nose, (2) an enhanced ability to use the forelimb in a cylinder test, and (3) improvements in balance and weight bearing on a horizontal rope. Transection of the PN graft, which cuts through regenerated axons, greatly diminished these functional improvements. Axonal regrowth from the PN graft correlated well with the behavioral assessments. Thus, many more axons extended for much longer distances into the cord after ChABC treatment and bridge insertion compared with the control groups, in which axons regenerated into the PN graft but growth back into the spinal cord was extremely limited. These results demonstrate, for the first time, that modulation of extracellular matrix components after spinal cord injury promotes significant axonal regeneration beyond the distal end of a PN bridge back into the spinal cord and that regenerating axons can mediate the return of useful function of the affected limb.

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

4.7
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