ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2014
The glial response to intracerebrally delivered therapies for neurodegenerative disorders: is this a critical issue?
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracerebellar injection of monocytic immature myeloid cells prevents the adverse effects caused by stereotactic surgery in a model of cerebellar neurodegeneration.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2024Article
- Do astrocytes respond to light, sound, or electrical stimulation?Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- How is flexible electronics advancing neuroscience research?Biomaterials · 2021Review
- Neurobiological After-Effects of Low Intensity Transcranial Electric Stimulation of the Human Nervous System: From Basic Mechanisms to Metaplasticity.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Bioinspired Materials forMatter · 2020Article
- Unraveling the Role of Astrocytes in Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in a Parkinson's Disease Rat Model.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2020Article
- Precision electronic medicine in the brain.Nature biotechnology · 2019Review
- Novel electrode technologies for neural recordings.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2019Review
- Implantable Direct Current Neural Modulation: Theory, Feasibility, and Efficacy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Review
- AAV5-miHTT Gene Therapy Demonstrates Broad Distribution and Strong Human Mutant Huntingtin Lowering in a Huntington's Disease Minipig Model.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2018Article
- Tissue-like Neural Probes for Understanding and Modulating the Brain.Biochemistry · 2018Article
- Tissue Response to Deep Brain Stimulation and Microlesion: A Comparative Study.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2016Article
- Cyclosporin promotes neurorestoration and cell replacement therapy in pre-clinical models of Parkinson's disease.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2015Article
- A novel combinational approach of microstimulation and bioluminescence imaging to study the mechanisms of action of cerebral electrical stimulation in mice.The Journal of physiology · 2015Article
- The role of astrocyte mitochondria in differential regional susceptibility to environmental neurotoxicants: tools for understanding neurodegeneration.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2015Review
- Striatal Injury with 6-OHDA Transiently Increases Cerebrospinal GFAP and S100B.Neural plasticity · 2015Article
- p38 MAPK and PI3K/AKT Signalling Cascades inParkinson's Disease.International journal of molecular and cellular medicine · 2015Review
- Lovastatin induces neuroprotection by inhibiting inflammatory cytokines in 6-hydroxydopamine treated microglia cells.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- The morphological and molecular changes of brain cells exposed to direct current electric field stimulation.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2014Article
- Neurodegenerative disorders: the Glia way forward.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of glial cells in the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative conditions of the central nervous system (CNS) is now well established (as is discussed in other reviews in this special issue of Frontiers in Neuropharmacology). What is less clear is whether there are changes in these same cells in terms of their behavior and function in response to invasive experimental therapeutic interventions for these diseases. This has, and will continue to become more of an issue as we enter a new era of novel treatments which require the agent to be directly placed/infused into the CNS such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), cell transplants, gene therapies and growth factor infusions. To date, all of these treatments have produced variable outcomes and the reasons for this have been widely debated but the host astrocytic and/or microglial response induced by such invasively delivered agents has not been discussed in any detail. In this review, we have attempted to summarize the limited published data on this, in particular we discuss the small number of human post-mortem studies reported in this field. By so doing, we hope to provide a better description and understanding of the extent and nature of both the astrocytic and microglial response, which in turn could lead to modifications in the way these therapeutic interventions are delivered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.