4.7 Article

Axonal regeneration and functional recovery after complete spinal cord transection in rats by delayed treatment with transplants and neurotrophins

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 23, 页码 9334-9344

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-23-09334.2001

关键词

spinal cord injury; CNS regeneration; functional recovery; neurotrophins; fetal transplants; chronic injury

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS 19259, NS 27054] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little axonal regeneration occurs after spinal cord injury in adult mammals. Regrowth of mature CNS axons can be induced, however, by altering the intrinsic capacity of the neurons for growth or by providing a permissive environment at the injury site. Fetal spinal cord transplants and neurotrophins were used to influence axonal regeneration in the adult rat after complete spinal cord transection at a midthoracic level. Transplants were placed into the lesion cavity either immediately after transection (acute injury) or after a 2-4 week delay (delayed or chronic transplants), and either vehicle or neurotrophic factors were administered exogenously via an implanted minipump. Host axons grew into the transplant in all groups. Surprisingly, regeneration from supraspinal pathways and recovery of motor function were dramatically increased when transplants and neurotrophins were delayed until 2-4 weeks after transection rather than applied acutely. Axonal growth back into the spinal cord below the lesion and transplants was seen only in the presence of neurotrophic factors. Furthermore, the restoration of anatomical connections across the injury site was associated with recovery of function with animals exhibiting plantar foot placement and weight-supported stepping. These findings suggest that the opportunity for intervention after spinal cord injury may be greater than originally envisioned and that CNS neurons with long-standing injuries can reinitiate growth, leading to improvement in motor function.

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