4.5 Review

Genes preferentially induced by depolarization after concussive brain injury: Effects of age and injury severity

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 387-402

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/08977150252932352

关键词

depolarization; development; fluid percussion; gene expression; hippocampus; immediate-early genes; traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR01870] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS28660, NS30308, NS27544] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluid percussion (FP) brain injury leads to immediate indiscriminate depolarization and massive potassium efflux from neurons. Using Northern blotting, we examined the post-FP expression of primary response/immediate early genes previously described as induced by depolarization in brain. RNA from ipsilateral and contralateral hippocampus was harvested from immature and adult rats 1 h following mild, moderate, or severe lateral fluid percussion injury and compared against age-matched sham animals. C-fos gene expression was used as a positive control and showed marked induction in both pups (6-25-fold with increasing severity) and adults (9.7-17.1-fold). Kinase-induced-by-depolarization-1 (KID-1) and salt-inducible kinase (SIK) gene expression was increased in adult (KID-1 1.5-1.6-fold; SIK 1.3-3.9-fold) but not developing rats. NGFI-b RNA was elevated after injury in both ages (pups 1.8-6.1-fold; adults 3.5-5-fold), in a pattern similar to that seen for c-fos. Secretogranin I (sec I) demonstrated no significant changes. Synaptotagmin IV (syt IV) was induced only following severe injury in the immature rats (1.4-fold). Our results reveal specific severity- and age-dependent patterns of hippocampal immediate early gene expression for these depolarization-induced genes following traumatic brain injury. Differential expression of these genes may be an important determinant of the distinct molecular responses of the brain to varying severities of trauma experienced at different ages.

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