4.8 Article

Radial glial cells play a key role in echinoderm neural regeneration

期刊

BMC BIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-11-49

关键词

Cellular mechanisms; Central nervous system; Echinodermata; Injury; Neurogenesis; Radial glia; Regeneration; Sea cucumber

类别

资金

  1. NIH [1SC1GM084770-01, 1R03NS065275-01]
  2. NSF [IOS-0842870]
  3. University of Puerto Rico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Unlike the mammalian central nervous system (CNS), the CNS of echinoderms is capable of fast and efficient regeneration following injury and constitutes one of the most promising model systems that can provide important insights into evolution of the cellular and molecular events involved in neural repair in deuterostomes. So far, the cellular mechanisms of neural regeneration in echinoderm remained obscure. In this study we show that radial glial cells are the main source of new cells in the regenerating radial nerve cord in these animals. Results: We demonstrate that radial glial cells of the sea cucumber Holothuria glaberrima react to injury by dedifferentiation. Both glia and neurons undergo programmed cell death in the lesioned CNS, but it is the dedifferentiated glial subpopulation in the vicinity of the injury that accounts for the vast majority of cell divisions. Glial outgrowth leads to formation of a tubular scaffold at the growing tip, which is later populated by neural elements. Most importantly, radial glial cells themselves give rise to new neurons. At least some of the newly produced neurons survive for more than 4 months and express neuronal markers typical of the mature echinoderm CNS. Conclusions: A hypothesis is formulated that CNS regeneration via activation of radial glial cells may represent a common capacity of the Deuterostomia, which is not invoked spontaneously in higher vertebrates, whose adult CNS does not retain radial glial cells. Potential implications for biomedical research aimed at finding the cure for human CNS injuries are discussed.

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

4.8
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