Journal of neurosurgery · 2010
The differential effects of pathway- versus target-derived glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor on peripheral nerve regeneration.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Magill Christina K, Moore Amy M, Yan Ying, Tong Alice Y, MacEwan Matthew R, Yee Andrew, Hayashi Ayato, Hunter Daniel A, Ray Wilson Z, Johnson Philip J, Parsadanian Alexander, Myckatyn Terence M, Mackinnon Susan E
Аннотация
OBJECT: Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) has potent survival effects on central and peripheral nerve populations. The authors examined the differential effects of GDNF following either a sciatic nerve crush injury in mice that overexpressed GDNF in the central or peripheral nervous systems (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP]-GDNF) or in the muscle target (Myo-GDNF).
METHODS: Adult mice (GFAP-GDNF, Myo-GDNF, or wild-type [WT] animals) underwent sciatic nerve crush and were evaluated using histomorphometry and muscle force and power testing. Uninjured WT animals served as controls.
RESULTS: In the sciatic nerve crush, the Myo-GDNF mice demonstrated a higher number of nerve fibers, fiber density, and nerve percentage (p < 0.05) at 2 weeks. The early regenerative response did not result in superlative functional recovery. At 3 weeks, GFAP-GDNF animals exhibit fewer nerve fibers, decreased fiber width, and decreased nerve percentage compared with WT and Myo-GDNF mice (p < 0.05). By 6 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral delivery of GDNF resulted in earlier regeneration following sciatic nerve crush injuries than that with central GDNF delivery. Treatment with neurotrophic factors such as GDNF may offer new possibilities for the treatment of peripheral nerve injury.
METHODS: Adult mice (GFAP-GDNF, Myo-GDNF, or wild-type [WT] animals) underwent sciatic nerve crush and were evaluated using histomorphometry and muscle force and power testing. Uninjured WT animals served as controls.
RESULTS: In the sciatic nerve crush, the Myo-GDNF mice demonstrated a higher number of nerve fibers, fiber density, and nerve percentage (p < 0.05) at 2 weeks. The early regenerative response did not result in superlative functional recovery. At 3 weeks, GFAP-GDNF animals exhibit fewer nerve fibers, decreased fiber width, and decreased nerve percentage compared with WT and Myo-GDNF mice (p < 0.05). By 6 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral delivery of GDNF resulted in earlier regeneration following sciatic nerve crush injuries than that with central GDNF delivery. Treatment with neurotrophic factors such as GDNF may offer new possibilities for the treatment of peripheral nerve injury.