4.3 Review

Absence of post-lesion reactive gliosis in elasmobranchs and turtles and its bearing on the evolution of astroglia

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jez.b.22505

关键词

-

资金

  1. Semmelweis University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the mature mammalian and avian central nervous systems, neuronal destructions are followed by reactive gliosis, but data on other vertebrates are rather controversial. Mammals and birds belong to different amniote groups (Synapsida and Diapsida, respectively), but exhibit common general features in their glial architecture, mainly the predominance of astrocytes. Two vertebrate groups seem to be in special positions of glial evolution: turtles (Testudiniformes) and skates and rays (Batoidea). The purely ependymoglial system of turtles seems to be the simplest one among the extant amniotes. In skates and rays, true astrocytes are preponderant glial elements, in contrast to the other anamniotes (and even to reptiles). We investigated stab wounds by the immunohistochemical detection of GFAP in turtles (Trachemysformerly Pseudemysscripta elegans), a skate (Raja clavata) and rays (Dasyatis akajei and Torpedo marmorata). Sharks (Scyliorhinus canicula) as ependymoglia-predominated chondrichthyans, andfor positive controlsrats were also studied. In the elasmobranchs, other astroglial markers: glutamine synthetase and S100 protein were also applied. Neither turtles nor elasmobranchs presented considerable astroglial reactions. Critically surveying the former reports on different vertebrates, these results complete the picture that typical post-lesion reactive gliosis is confined to mammals and birds. Analysis of the astroglial systems from phylogenetic perspective suggests that the capability of forming glial demarcation and scar formation evolved independently in mammals and birds. Predominance of astrocytes is a necessary condition but not sufficient for reactive gliosis. The intense glial reactivity of mammals and birds may be attributed to their complex cerebralization. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 320B: 351-367, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.3
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