4.5 Article

Differences between collagen morphologies, properties and distribution in diabetic and normal biobreeding and Sprague-Dawley rat sciatic nerves

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 879-888

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.11.008

关键词

biobreeding; Sprague-Dawley collagen; diabetes; ECM; AFM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both structural and functional differences between normal and diabetic nerve have been observed, in human patients and animal models. We hypothesize that these structural differences are quantifiable, morphologically and mechanically, with the ultimate aim of understanding the contribution of these differences to permanent nerve damage. The outer collagenous epineurial and perineurial tissues of mammalian peripheral nerves mechanically and chemically shield the conducting axons. We have quantified differences in these collagens, using whole-nerve uniaxial testing, and immunohistochemistry of collagens type 1, 111, and IV in diabetic and normal nerves. We present results of two studies, oil normal and diabetic BioBreeding (BB), and normal, diabetic and weight-controlled Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats, respectively. Overall, we measured slightly higher uniaxial moduli (e.g. 5.9 MPa vs. 3.5 MPa, BB; 10.7 MPa vs. 10.0 MPa, SD at 40% strain) in whole nerves as well as higher peak stresses (e.g. 0.99 MPa vs. 0.74 MPa, BB; 2.16 MPa vs. 1.94 MPa, SD at 40% strain) in the diabetics of both animal models. We measured increased concentrations of types III and IV collagens in the diabetics of both models and mixed upregulation results were observed in type I protein levels. We detected small differences in mechanical properties at the tissue scale, though we found significant structural and morphometric differences at the fibril scale. These findings suggest that whole-tissue mechanical testing is not a sufficient assay for collagen glycation, and that fibrillar and molecular Scale assays are needed to detect the earliest stages of diabetic protein glycation. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. 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