Regeneration and Plasticity Induced by Epidural Stimulation in a Rodent Model of Spinal Cord Injury
-
Published:2024-08-21
Issue:16
Volume:25
Page:9043
-
ISSN:1422-0067
-
Container-title:International Journal of Molecular Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:IJMS
Author:
Angelin Leonidas Gomes1ORCID, Carreño Marcelo Nelson Páez2ORCID, Otoch Jose Pinhata1, de Resende Joyce Cristina Ferreira1ORCID, Arévalo Analía1ORCID, Motta-Teixeira Lívia Clemente3ORCID, Seelaender Marilia Cerqueira Leite1, Lepski Guilherme1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Laboratory of Medical Investigation, LIM26, Department of Experimental Surgery, Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 01246-903, Brazil 2. Microelectronics and Materials Laboratory, Polytechnic School, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 05508-010, Brazil 3. Laboratory of Neuroplasticity and Behaviour, Department of Physiological Sciences, Santa Casa de Sao Paulo School of Medical Sciences, Sao Paulo 01221-020, Brazil
Abstract
Traumatic spinal cord injury is a major cause of disability for which there are currently no fully effective treatments. Recent studies using epidural electrical stimulation have shown significant advances in motor rehabilitation, even when applied during chronic phases of the disease. The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of epidural electric stimulation in the motor recovery of rats with spinal cord injury. Furthermore, we aimed to elucidate the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor recovery. First, we improved upon the impact spinal cord injury model to cause severe and permanent motor deficits lasting up to 2 months. Next, we developed and tested an implantable epidural spinal cord stimulator device for rats containing an electrode and an implantable generator. Finally, we evaluated the efficacy of epidural electrical stimulation on motor recovery after spinal cord injury in Wistar rats. A total of 60 animals were divided into the following groups: (i) severe injury with epidural electrical stimulation (injury + stim, n = 15), (ii) severe injury without stimulation (group injury, n = 15), (iii) sham implantation without battery (sham, n = 15), and (iv) a control group, without surgical intervention (control, n = 15). All animals underwent weekly evaluations using the Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor rating scale index, inclined plane, and OpenField test starting one week before the lesion and continuing for eight weeks. After this period, the animals were sacrificed and their spinal cords were explanted and prepared for histological analysis (hematoxylin–eosin) and immunohistochemistry for NeuN, β-III-tubulin, synaptophysin, and Caspase 3. Finally, NeuN-positive neuronal nuclei were quantified through stereology; fluorescence signal intensities for β-tubulin, synaptophyin, and Caspase 3 were quantified using an epifluorescence microscope. The injury + stim group showed significant improvement on the BBB scale compared with the injured group after the 5th week (p < 0.05). Stereological analysis showed a significantly higher average count of neural cells in the injury + stim group in relation to the injury group (1783 ± 2 vs. 897 ± 3, p < 0.001). Additionally, fluorescence signal intensity for synaptophysin was significantly higher in the injury + stim group in relation to the injury group (1294 ± 46 vs. 1198 ± 23, p < 0.01); no statistically significant difference was found in β-III-tubulin signal intensity. Finally, Caspase 3 signal intensity was significantly lower in the stim group (727 ± 123) compared with the injury group (1225 ± 87 p < 0.05), approaching levels observed in the sham and control groups. Our data suggest a regenerative and protective effect of epidural electrical stimulation in rats subjected to impact-induced traumatic spinal cord injury.
Funder
Coordenação de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Reference52 articles.
1. GBD Collaborator Network (2024). Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990-2021: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Neurol., 23, 344–381. 2. GBD Collaborator Network (2023). Global, regional, and national burden of spinal cord injury, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol., 22, 1026–1047. 3. Assessment and management of acute spinal cord injury: From point of injury to rehabilitation;Hachem;J. Spinal Cord. Med.,2017 4. Current perspectives in stem cell therapy for spinal cord repair in humans: A review of work from the past 10 years;Mariano;Arq. Neuropsiquiatr.,2014 5. Li, J., and Lepski, G. (2013). Cell transplantation for spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Biomed. Res. Int., 2013.
|
|