4.7 Article

The cortical innate immune response increases local neuronal excitability leading to seizures

期刊

BRAIN
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 2478-2486

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awp177

关键词

epilepsy; glial cells; LPS; TLR4; IL1

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NS36981]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council [ID 465423]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain glial cells, five times more prevalent than neurons, have recently received attention for their potential involvement in epileptic seizures. Microglia and astrocytes, associated with inflammatory innate immune responses, are responsible for surveillance of brain damage that frequently results in seizures. Thus, an intriguing suggestion has been put forward that seizures may be facilitated and perhaps triggered by brain immune responses. Indeed, recent evidence strongly implicates innate immune responses in lowering seizure threshold in experimental models of epilepsy, yet, there is no proof that they can play an independent role in initiating seizures in vivo. Here, we show that cortical innate immune responses alone produce profound increases of brain excitability resulting in focal seizures. We found that cortical application of lipopolysaccharide, binding to toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), triples evoked field potential amplitudes and produces focal epileptiform discharges. These effects are prevented by pre-application of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist. Our results demonstrate how the innate immune response may participate in acute seizures, increasing neuronal excitability through interleukin-1 release in response to TLR4 detection of the danger signals associated with infections of the central nervous system and with brain injury. These results suggest an important role of innate immunity in epileptogenesis and focus on glial inhibition, through pharmacological blockade of TLR4 and the pro-inflammatory mediators released by activated glia, in the study and treatment of seizure disorders in humans.

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