Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26562295›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Elucidating the Role of Injury-Induced Electric Fields (EFs) in Regulating the Astrocytic Response to Injury in the Mammalian Central Nervous System.

Matthew L Baer, Scott C Henderson, Raymond J Colello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2017
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matthew L BaerDepartment of Anatomy & Neurobiology, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.
Scott C HendersonDepartment of Anatomy & Neurobiology, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.
Raymond J ColelloDepartment of Anatomy & Neurobiology, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.

Funding

Virus Vector Shared ResourceP30CA016059 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI Keri R Maher · 1985 to 2026
$51.0M
VCU Neuroscience Center Core GrantP30NS047463 · NINDS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI POVLISHOCK, JOHN T · 2003 to 2013
$5.0M
THE BRAIN PARENCHYMAL AND VASCULAR RESPONSE TO TRAUMAT32NS007288 · NINDS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI POVLISHOCK, JOHN T · 1986 to 2010
$2.0M
Bioengineering bridges to promote axon regeneration following spinal cord injuryR21NS067364 · NINDS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI COLELLO, RAYMOND J · 2010 to 2011
$394k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016059NCI NIH HHS P30CA016059NINDS NIH HHS 5P30NS047463NINDS NIH HHS 5R21NS067364NINDS NIH HHS 5T32NS07288NINDS NIH HHS P30 NS047463NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS067364NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS007288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Injury to the vertebrate central nervous system (CNS) induces astrocytes to change their morphology, to increase their rate of proliferation, and to display directional migration to the injury site, all to facilitate repair. These astrocytic responses to injury occur in a clear temporal sequence and, by their intensity and duration, can have both beneficial and detrimental effects on the repair of damaged CNS tissue. Studies on highly regenerative tissues in non-mammalian vertebrates have demonstrated that the intensity of direct-current extracellular electric fields (EFs) at the injury site, which are 50-100 fold greater than in uninjured tissue, represent a potent signal to drive tissue repair. In contrast, a 10-fold EF increase has been measured in many injured mammalian tissues where limited regeneration occurs. As the astrocytic response to CNS injury is crucial to the reparative outcome, we exposed purified rat cortical astrocytes to EF intensities associated with intact and injured mammalian tissues, as well as to those EF intensities measured in regenerating non-mammalian vertebrate tissues, to determine whether EFs may contribute to the astrocytic injury response. Astrocytes exposed to EF intensities associated with uninjured tissue showed little change in their cellular behavior. However, astrocytes exposed to EF intensities associated with injured tissue showed a dramatic increase in migration and proliferation. At EF intensities associated with regenerating non-mammalian vertebrate tissues, these cellular responses were even more robust and included morphological changes consistent with a regenerative phenotype. These findings suggest that endogenous EFs may be a crucial signal for regulating the astrocytic response to injury and that their manipulation may be a novel target for facilitating CNS repair.

Indexed as

Nerve RegenerationAnimalsAstrocytesCell MovementCell ProliferationCells, CulturedCentral Nervous SystemCerebral CortexElectricityElectric StimulationGlial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinImmunohistochemistryMammalsMicroscopy, ConfocalMicroscopy, FluorescenceNestinGlial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinNestinVimentin

Identifiers

PMID26562295
PMCPMC4643040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.