4.7 Article

Disruption of neurofascin and gliomedin at nodes of Ranvier precedes demyelination in experimental allergic neuritis

期刊

BRAIN
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 260-273

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn281

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High densities of voltage-gated sodium (Nav) channels at nodes of Ranvier enable the rapid regeneration and propagation of the action potentials along myelinated axons. In demyelinating pathologies, myelin alterations lead to conduction slowing and even to conduction block. In order to unravel the mechanisms of conduction failure in inflammatory demyelinating diseases, we have examined two models of GuillainBarr syndrome: the experimental allergic neuritis induced in the Lewis rat by immunization against peripheral myelin (EAN-PM) and against a neuritogenic P2 peptide (EAN-P2). We found that Nav channel clusters were disrupted at EAN-PM nodes. Neurofascin and gliomedin, two cell adhesion molecules involved with aggregating Nav channels at nodes, were selectively affected prior to demyelination in EAN-PM, indicating that degradation of the axo-glial unit initiated node alteration. This was associated with autoantibodies to neurofascin and gliomedin. Node disruption was, however, independent from complement deposition at nodes, and deposits of the terminal complement complex (C5b-9) were found on the external surface of Schwann cells in EAN-PM. In these animals, the paranodal junctions were also affected and Kv1 channels, which are normally juxtaparanodal, were found dispersed at nodes and paranodes. Altogether, these alterations were associated with conduction deficits in EAN-PM ventral spinal roots. EAN-P2 animals also exhibited inflammatory demyelination, but did not show alteration in nodal clusters or autoantibodies. Our results highlighted the complex mechanisms underlying conduction abnormalities in demyelinating disorders, and unraveled neurofascin and gliomedin as two novel immune targets in experimental allergic neuritis.

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