4.7 Article

Hypoxia in multiple sclerosis; is it the chicken or the egg?

期刊

BRAIN
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 402-410

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awaa427

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; hypoxia; blood vessels; inflammation; blood-brain barrier integrity

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NS095753]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fifty years of research on multiple sclerosis have provided significant insights into this neurological disease, revealing its characteristics and raising questions about the initial trigger of the inflammatory demyelinating process. Recent studies suggest that hypoxia, in addition to the immune system, may play a role in disease progression, leading researchers to investigate the impact of manipulating inspired oxygen levels.
Over the past 50 years, intense research effort has taught us a great deal about multiple sclerosis. We know that it is the most common neurological disease affecting the young-middle aged, that it affects two to three times more females than males, and that it is characterized as an autoimmune disease, in which autoreactive T lymphocytes cross the blood-brain barrier, resulting in demyelinating lesions. But despite all the knowledge gained, a key question still remains; what is the initial event that triggers the inflammatory demyelinating process? While most research effort to date has focused on the immune system, more recently, another potential candidate has emerged: hypoxia. Specifically, a growing number of studies have described the presence of hypoxia (both 'virtual' and real) at an early stage of demyelinating lesions, and several groups, including our own, have begun to investigate how manipulation of inspired oxygen levels impacts disease progression. In this review we summarize the findings of these hypoxia studies, and in particular, address three main questions: (i) is the hypoxia found in demyelinating lesions 'virtual' or real; (ii) what causes this hypoxia; and (iii) how does manipulation of inspired oxygen impact disease progression?

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