4.5 Article

Cationic liposome-mediated GDNF gene transfer after spinal cord injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 1081-1090

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/089771502760341983

关键词

axonal regeneration; GDNF; gene therapy; liposome; motor recovery; spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) has been shown to protect cranial and spinal motoneurons, which suggests potential uses of GDNF in the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI) and motor neuron disease. We examined neuroprotective effect of cationic liposome-mediated GDNF gene transfer in vivo on axonal regeneration and locomotor function recovery after SCI in adult rats. The mixture of DC-Chol liposomes and recombinant plasmid pEGFP-GDNF cDNA was injected after SCI. RT-PCR confirmed the increased expression of GDNF mRNA in the injected areas at 7 days after injection. The expression of EGFP-GDNF was observed in the cells around the injection locus by fluorescence microscope at least 4 weeks after injection. Four weeks after GDNF gene transfer, regeneration of the corticospinal. tracts was assessed using anterograde tract tracing. There are more HRP labeling of corticospinal tract axons across the lesion in GDNF group compared with control group. In GDNF group, the maximum distance these labeled axons extended varied in different animals and ranged from 5 nun to approximately 9 mm from the lesion. In control group, no HRP labeled axons extended caudal to the lesion. The locomotion function of hindlimbs of rats was evaluated using inclined plane test and BBB locomotor scores. The locomotion functional scores in GDNF group were higher than that in control group within 1-4 weeks after SCI (p < 0.05). These data demonstrate that in vivo transfer of GDNF cDNA can promote axonal regeneration and enhance locomotion functional recovery, suggesting that cationic liposome-mediated delivery of GDNF cDNA may be a practical gene transfer method for traumatic SCI treatment.

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