4.5 Article

Neuronal degeneration and gliosis time-course in the mouse hippocampal formation after pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1470, 期 -, 页码 98-110

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.06.008

关键词

Epilepsy; Status epilepticus; Pilocarpine; Fluoro-jade B; Neurodegeneration; Astrocyte

资金

  1. FAPESP
  2. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is the most common type of human epilepsy and has been related with extensive loss of hippocampal pyramidal and dentate hilar neurons and gliosis. Many characteristics of TLE are reproduced in the pilocarpine model of epilepsy in mice. This study analyzed the neuronal damage, assessed with Fluoro-Jade (FJB) and cresyl violet, and gliosis, investigated with glial fibrilary acidic protein (GFAP) immunohistochemistry, occurring in the hippocampal formation of mice at 3, 6, 12 and 24 h, 1 and 3 weeks after the pilocarpine-induced status-epilepticus (SE) onset. The maximum neuronal damage score and the FJB-positive neurons peak were found in the hilus of dentate gyrus 3 and 12h after SE onset (P<0.05), respectively. At 1 week after SE onset, the greatest neuronal damage score was detected in the CA1 pyramidal cell layer and the greatest numbers of FJB-positive neurons were found both in the CA1 and CA3 pyramidal cell layers (P<0.05). The molecular, CA3 and CA1 pyramidal cell layers expressed highest presence of GFAP immunoreaction at 1 and 3 weeks after SE onset (P<0.05). Our findings show that, depending on the affected area, neuronal death and gliosis can occur within few hours or weeks after SE onset. Our results corroborate previous studies and characterize short time points of temporal evolution of neuropathological changes after the onset of pilocarpine-induced SE in mice and evidences that additional studies of this temporal evolution may be useful to the comprehension of the cellular mechanisms underlying epileptogenesis. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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