4.7 Article

Greatly Increased Numbers of Histamine Cells in Human Narcolepsy with Cataplexy

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 786-793

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.23968

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs
  2. NIH [NS14610, MH064109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo determine whether histamine cells are altered in human narcolepsy with cataplexy and in animal models of this disease. MethodsImmunohistochemistry for histidine decarboxylase (HDC) and quantitative microscopy were used to detect histamine cells in human narcoleptics, hypocretin (Hcrt) receptor-2 mutant dogs, and 3 mouse narcolepsy models: Hcrt (orexin) knockouts, ataxin-3-orexin, and doxycycline-controlled-diphtheria-toxin-A-orexin. ResultsWe found an average 64% increase in the number of histamine neurons in human narcolepsy with cataplexy, with no overlap between narcoleptics and controls. However, we did not see altered numbers of HDC cells in any of the animal models of narcolepsy. InterpretationChanges in histamine cell numbers are not required for the major symptoms of narcolepsy, because all animal models have these symptoms. The histamine cell changes we saw in humans did not occur in the 4 animal models of Hcrt dysfunction we examined. Therefore, the loss of Hcrt receptor-2, of the Hcrt peptide, or of Hcrt cells is not sufficient to produce these changes. We speculate that the increased histamine cell numbers we see in human narcolepsy may instead be related to the process causing the human disorder. Although research has focused on possible antigens within the Hcrt cells that might trigger their autoimmune destruction, the present findings suggest that the triggering events of human narcolepsy may involve a proliferation of histamine-containing cells. We discuss this and other explanations of the difference between human narcoleptics and animal models of narcolepsy, including therapeutic drug use and species differences. Ann Neurol 2013;74:786-793

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