4.5 Article

Effects of inflammation produced by chronic lipopolysaccharide administration on the survival of hypocretin neurons and sleep

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1019, 期 1-2, 页码 162-169

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.06.016

关键词

orexin; lateral hypothalamus; wakefulness; neurodegeneration; rat

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG09975, AG15853] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH55772] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS30140] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The number of hypocretin-containing neurons is markedly decreased in most patients with the sleep disorder narcolepsy. It is presently not known why the loss of hypocretin neurons occurs in these patients. In the present study, we tested the role of inflammation in the degeneration of hypocretin neurons. The proinflammagen lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was infused chronically for 30 days (flow rate 0.22 mug/h) into the lateral hypothalamus in rats. Compared with chronic infusions of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), LPS infusions produced a decline in the number of hypocretin (29.7% reduction), melanin concentrating hormone (MCH; 24.7% reduction), and neuronal nuclear antigen (NeuN)-immunoreactive neurons, as well as a dense distribution of reactive astrocytes and microglia within the lateral hypothalamus. LPS infusions also produced a large increase in the amounts of wakefulness 6 days after the onset of infusion (72.5 +/- 8.7% of wakefulness during lights-on period compared with 45.3 +/- 1.8% in PBS-treated rats). Amounts of wakefulness returned to control levels in all LPS-treated rats 30 days after the onset of infusion. A single injection of LPS (1, 5, or 10 mug) did not produce a significant decline in the number of hypocretin, MCH, or NeuN-positive neurons. The loss of hypocretin neurons produced by chronic LPS administration suggests that inflammation may play a role in the loss of hypocretin neurons in narcolepsy. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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