The Effect of A1/A2 Reactive Astrocyte Expression on Hydrocephalus Shunt Failure

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Understanding the composition characteristics of the glial scar contributing to the high failure rate of neuroprosthetic devices implanted in the brain has been limited, to date, with the evaluation of cells, tissue, and biomarkers obstructing the implant. However, there remains a critical knowledge gap in gene expression profiles of the obstructing cells. This first-time study investigates the phenotypic expression specific to astrocyte scarring from those cells on hydrocephalus shunt surfaces at the time of failure, aimed at the development of therapeutic approaches to target reactive astrocytes for improved functional outcome. Recent evidence has indicated that the tissue obstructing shunts is over 80% inflammatory, with a more exaggerated astrocytic response. To understand how to mitigate the astrocyte immune response to shunts, we performed gene expression profiling of the C3 and EMP1 genes to quantify if astrocytes were classically activated and pro-inflammatory (A1) or alternatively activated and anti-inflammatory (A2), respectively. Shunt catheters were removed from patients at the time of failure and categorized by obstructed vs non-obstructed shunts. RNAscope fluorescent in situ hybridization and quantitative PCR analysis of the C3 and EMP1 expressed genes revealed that a heterogeneous mixed population of both the A1 and A2 reactive phenotype exist on the shunt surface. However, the number of A2 reactive astrocytes are significantly higher on obstructed shunts compared to A1 reactive astrocytes. ELISA data also confirmed higher levels of IL-6 for obstructed shunts involved in A2 reactive astrocyte proliferation and glial scar formation on the shunt surface. Since TNF-α and IL-1β propel resting astrocytes into an A2 reactive state, by simply blocking the secretion or action of these cytokines, astrocyte activation and attachment on obstructing shunts could be inhibited.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.