Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
The extracellular matrix in plasticity and regeneration after CNS injury and neurodegenerative disease
Fawcett JW.. Progress in brain research, 2015-03-29
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) are involved in several processes relevant to recovery of function after CNS damage. They restrict axon regeneration through their presence in glial scar tissue and plasticity through their presence in perineuronal nets (PNNs), affect memory through their effect on dendritic spines, and influence the inflammatory reaction. Much of our knowledge of these CSPG effects comes from digestion of their glycosaminoglycan chains by the enzyme chondroitinase ABC (ChABC). ChABC after spinal cord injury permits some axon regeneration and greatly increases plasticity through increased sprouting and through digestion of PNNs. When combined with appropriate rehabilitation, ChABC treatment can lead to considerable restoration of function. ChABC treatment of the perirhinal cortex greatly increases retention of object recognition memory. When applied to tauopathy animals that model Alzheimer's disease, ChABC digestion can restore normal object recognition memory. CSPGs in the adult CNS are found throughout the ECM, but 2% is concentrated in PNNs that surround GABAergic parvalbumin interneurons and other neurons. Knockout of the PNN-organizing protein Crtl1 link protein attenuates PNNs and leads to continued plasticity into adulthood, demonstrating that the CSPGs in PNNs are the key components in the control of plasticity. CSPGs act mainly through their sulfated glycosaminoglycan chains. A disulfated CS-E motif in these chains is responsible for binding of Semaphorin 3A to PNNs where it affects ocular dominance plasticity and probably other forms of plasticity. In addition OTX2 binds to CS-E motifs, where it can act on parvalbumin interneurons to maintain the PNNs.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Fawcett, J. W. (2015). The extracellular matrix in plasticity and regeneration after CNS injury and neurodegenerative disease. Progress in brain research. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.02.001
Vancouver
Fawcett JW. The extracellular matrix in plasticity and regeneration after CNS injury and neurodegenerative disease. Progress in brain research. 2015. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.02.001. PMID: 25890139.
BibTeX
@article{fawcett2015-25890139,
author = {Fawcett, J. W.},
title = {{The extracellular matrix in plasticity and regeneration after CNS injury and neurodegenerative disease}},
journal = {Progress in brain research},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.02.001},
pmid = {25890139},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.02.001}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- CSPGs in the adult CNS are found throughout the ECM, but 2% is concentrated in PNNs that surround GABAergic parvalbumin interneurons and other neurons.
- Knockout of the PNN-organizing protein Crtl1 link protein attenuates PNNs and leads to continued plasticity into adulthood, demonstrating that the CSPGs in PNNs are the key components in the control of plasticity.
- CSPGs act mainly through their sulfated glycosaminoglycan chains.
- A disulfated CS-E motif in these chains is responsible for binding of Semaphorin 3A to PNNs where it affects ocular dominance plasticity and probably other forms of plasticity.
- In addition OTX2 binds to CS-E motifs, where it can act on parvalbumin interneurons to maintain the PNNs.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Progress in brain research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25890139) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “regeneration”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “regeneration”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.