4.5 Article

Inhibiting Calcium Release from Ryanodine Receptors Protects Axons after Spinal Cord Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 39, 期 3-4, 页码 311-319

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2021.0350

关键词

axonal spheroids; intravital microscopy; ryanodine receptor; secondary degeneration; spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates the involvement of Ryanodine receptors (RyRs) in axonal degeneration following spinal cord injury, and shows that RyR inhibition can significantly reduce axonal spheroid formation and increase axonal survival. Delayed ryanodine treatment also proves beneficial in reducing intra-axonal calcium levels after injury.
Ryanodine receptors (RyRs) mediate calcium release from calcium stores and have been implicated in axonal degeneration. Here, we use an intravital imaging approach to determine axonal fate after spinal cord injury (SCI) in real-time and assess the efficacy of ryanodine receptor inhibition as a potential therapeutic approach to prevent intra-axonal calcium-mediated axonal degeneration. Adult 6-8 week old Thy1YFP transgenic mice that express YFP in axons, as well as triple transgenic Avil-Cre:Ai9:Ai95 mice that express the genetically-encoded calcium indicator GCaMP6f in tdTomato positive axons, were used to visualize axons and calcium changes in axons, respectively. Mice received a mild SCI at the T12 level of the spinal cord. Ryanodine, a RyR antagonist, was given at a concentration of 50 mu M intrathecally within 15 min of SCI or delayed 3 h after injury and compared with vehicle-treated mice. RyR inhibition within 15 min of SCI significantly reduced axonal spheroid formation from 1 h to 24 h after SCI and increased axonal survival compared with vehicle controls. Delayed ryanodine treatment increased axonal survival and reduced intra-axonal calcium levels at 24 h after SCI but had no effect on axonal spheroid formation. Together, our results support a role for RyR in secondary axonal degeneration.

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

4.5
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