4.4 Review

Role of the lesion scar in the response to damage and repair of the central nervous system

期刊

CELL AND TISSUE RESEARCH
卷 349, 期 1, 页码 169-180

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00441-012-1336-5

关键词

Traumatic injury; Central nervous system; Glial scar; Fibrotic scar; Blood-brain barrier; Axonal regeneration

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan [23500422]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23500422, 23500473] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traumatic damage to the central nervous system (CNS) destroys the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and provokes the invasion of hematogenous cells into the neural tissue. Invading leukocytes, macrophages and lymphocytes secrete various cytokines that induce an inflammatory reaction in the injured CNS and result in local neural degeneration, formation of a cystic cavity and activation of glial cells around the lesion site. As a consequence of these processes, two types of scarring tissue are formed in the lesion site. One is a glial scar that consists in reactive astrocytes, reactive microglia and glial precursor cells. The other is a fibrotic scar formed by fibroblasts, which have invaded the lesion site from adjacent meningeal and perivascular cells. At the interface, the reactive astrocytes and the fibroblasts interact to form an organized tissue, the glia limitans. The astrocytic reaction has a protective role by reconstituting the BBB, preventing neuronal degeneration and limiting the spread of damage. While much attention has been paid to the inhibitory effects of the astrocytic component of the scars on axon regeneration, this review will cover a number of recent studies in which manipulations of the fibroblastic component of the scar by reagents, such as blockers of collagen synthesis have been found to be beneficial for axon regeneration. To what extent these changes in the fibroblasts act via subsequent downstream actions on the astrocytes remains for future investigation.

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

4.4
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