Auris, nasus, larynx · 2021
Olfactory dysfunction in LATY136F knock-in mice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kaneda Misako, Yagi-Nakanishi Sayaka, Ozaki Fumi, Kondo Satoru, Mizuguchi Keishi, Kawano Mitsuhiro, Malissen Marie, Malissen Bernard, Yamada Kazunori, Yoshizaki Tomokazu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study examined olfactory dysfunction in LATY136F knock-in mice and its pathogenic mechanism.
METHODS: The olfactory function of LATY136F knock-in mice was assessed by a behavioral test using cycloheximide solution, which has been used as a mice repellant because of its peculiar smell and unpleasant taste. The tests were administered to each group of LATY136F knock-in mice and WT mice at 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks of age. After the behavioral tests to evaluate olfactory function, the mice were sacrificed for evaluations by immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS: Behavioral tests to evaluate olfactory function showed that the LATY136F knock-in mice had a statistically significant level of olfactory dysfunction (P < 0.05). Histological analysis showed that the thickness of the olfactory epithelium in these mice was thinner than that in the age-matched wild type mice. There was no IgG4-RD like lesion in the olfactory epithelium of LATY136F knock-in mice. Olfactory marker protein and growth-associated protein 43 expressions in the olfactory epithelium of the LATY136F knock-in mice were markedly lesser than those in the wild type mice (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that olfactory disturbances occurred in LATY136F knock-in mice. Furthermore, the mechanism was suggested to be reduced regeneration of the olfactory epithelium.
METHODS: The olfactory function of LATY136F knock-in mice was assessed by a behavioral test using cycloheximide solution, which has been used as a mice repellant because of its peculiar smell and unpleasant taste. The tests were administered to each group of LATY136F knock-in mice and WT mice at 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks of age. After the behavioral tests to evaluate olfactory function, the mice were sacrificed for evaluations by immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS: Behavioral tests to evaluate olfactory function showed that the LATY136F knock-in mice had a statistically significant level of olfactory dysfunction (P < 0.05). Histological analysis showed that the thickness of the olfactory epithelium in these mice was thinner than that in the age-matched wild type mice. There was no IgG4-RD like lesion in the olfactory epithelium of LATY136F knock-in mice. Olfactory marker protein and growth-associated protein 43 expressions in the olfactory epithelium of the LATY136F knock-in mice were markedly lesser than those in the wild type mice (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that olfactory disturbances occurred in LATY136F knock-in mice. Furthermore, the mechanism was suggested to be reduced regeneration of the olfactory epithelium.