4.5 Article

Immune-based therapy for spinal cord repair: Autologous macrophages and beyond

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 23, 期 3-4, 页码 360-370

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2006.23.360

关键词

immunomodulation; inflammation; neurogenesis; neuroprotection; neuroregeneration; protective autoimmunity; spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal cord injury is a devastating condition of the central nervous system (CNS), often resulting in severe loss of tissue, functional impairment, and only limited repair. Studies over the last few years have shown that response to the insult and spontaneous attempts at repair are multiphasic processes, with varying and sometimes conflicting requirements. This knowledge has led to novel strategies of therapeutic intervention. Our view is that a pivotal role in repair, maintenance, healing, and cell renewal in the CNS, as in other tissues, is played by the immune system. The mode and timing of intervention must be carefully selected, however, as the capacity of the CNS to tolerate local repair mechanisms is limited. Studies have shown that the spontaneously evoked early innate response to CNS injury is characterized by invasion of neutrophils and is unfavorable for cell survival. This is followed by a response of the resident innate immune cells (microglia), which however cannot supply all the needs of the damaged tissue; moreover, once evoked, and for as long as the damage persists, the microglial response remains beyond the capacity of the CNS to tolerate it. Immune-based clinical intervention is most effective in improving functional and morphological recovery when delayed for a certain period. Effective intervention might be in the form of (1) local injection of alternatively activated macrophages, (2) systemic injection of dendritic cells specific to CNS antigens, or (3) T-cell-based vaccination. The treatment of choice depends on the severity of the insult, the site of injury, the therapeutic window, and safety considerations.

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