4.6 Article

Distinct Changes in Synaptic Protein Composition at Neuromuscular Junctions of Extraocular Muscles versus Limb Muscles of ALS Donors

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057473

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [K2012-63X-20399-06-3]
  2. Ake-Wibergs Stiftelsen [281997739]
  3. Swedish Brain Research Foundation
  4. Stiftelsen Kronprinsessan Margaretas Arbetsnamnd for synskadade [25:2011]
  5. Swedish Medical Society [2009-22120]
  6. Swedish Association of Persons with Neurological Disabilities (NHR)
  7. Kempe Foundation
  8. Hallstens Research Foundation
  9. Ogonfonden and The Bjorklund Foundation for ALS Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pathophysiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is very complex and still rather elusive but in recent years evidence of early involvement of the neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) has accumulated. We have recently reported that the human extraocular muscles (EOMs) are far less affected than limb muscles at the end-stage of ALS from the same donor. The present study aimed to compare the differences in synaptic protein composition at NMJ and in nerve fibers between EOM and limb muscles from ALS donors and controls. Neurofilament light subunit and synaptophysin decreased significantly at NMJs and in nerve fibers in limb muscles with ALS whereas they were maintained in ALS EOMs. S100B was significantly decreased at NMJs and in nerve fibers in both EOMs and limb muscles of ALS donors, but other markers confirmed the presence of terminal Schwann cells in these NMJs. p75 neurotrophin receptor was present in nerve fibers but absent at NMJs in ALS limb muscles. The EOMs were able to maintain the integrity of their NMJs to a very large extent until the end-stage of ALS, in contrast to the limb muscles. Changes in Ca2+ homeostasis, reflected by altered S100B distribution, might be involved in the breakdown of nerve-muscle contact at NMJs in ALS.

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

4.6
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