4.7 Article

Neuroprotection by minocycline facilitates significant recovery from spinal cord injury in mice

期刊

BRAIN
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 1628-1637

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awg178

关键词

inflammation; minocycline; neuroprotection; recovery; spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) produces tissue damage that continues to evolve days and weeks after the initial insult, with corresponding functional impairments. Reducing the extent of progressive tissue loss ('neuroprotection') following SCI should result in a better recovery from SCI, but treatment options have thus far been limited. In this study, we have tested the efficacy of minocycline in ameliorating damage following acute SCI in mice. This semi-synthetic tetracycline antibiotic has been reported to inhibit the expression and activity of several mediators of tissue injury, including inflammatory, cytokines, free radicals and matrix metalloproteinases, making it a suitable candidate for study. Mice were subjected to extradural compression of the spinal cord using a modified aneurysm clip, following which they received treatment with either minocycline or vehicle beginning I h after injury. Behavioural testing of hindlimb function was initiated 3 days after injury using the Basso Beattie Bresnahan locomotor rating scale, and at 1 week using the inclined plane test. Functional assessments demonstrated that minocycline administration significantly improved both hindlimb function and strength from 3 to 28 days after injury compared with vehicle controls. Furthermore, gross lesion size in the spinal cord was significantly reduced by minocycline, and there was evidence of axonal sparing as determined using fluorogold labelling of the rubrospinal tract and by Bielchowsky silver stain. Finally, a comparison of minocycline against the currently approved treatment for acute SCI in humans, methylprednisolone, demonstrated superior behavioural recovery in the minocycline-treated animals.

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