Krieger Derk W
Department of Neurology, Stroke Center, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Front Neurol Neurosci. 2013;32:76-87. doi: 10.1159/000346419. Epub 2013 Jul 8.
The identification of strategies by which the central nervous system (CNS) can transform itself in response to injury has incited the systematic exploration of methods to enhance neurological recovery after CNS injury. Several pharmaceuticals have been shown to promote such recovery; however, more rigorous clinical trials are necessary to establish their clinical relevance. The major impediment for these strategies in the clinical arena is the astounding heterogeneity surrounding neuroplasticity and regeneration. Tolerance to injury and varied rates of recovery are likely governed by genetic and environmental factors that remain largely elusive. The extraordinary complexity of the neural networks in the CNS impedes the assessment of 'plain' pharmacological interventions in therapeutic trials. 'Proof-of-principle' studies of pharmacological interventions enhancing neuroplasticity or regeneration may therefore at first focus on surrogate markers, such as functional MRI, magnetoencephalography and diffusion tensor imaging, or investigate seemingly more uniform systems, such as spinal cord injuries. The discovery that experimental adult CNS lesions can essentially regenerate has rejected the conviction that adult axon injury is always permanent and spurred research into determining whether the circumstances under which such regeneration occurs can be created in human CNS injury. The hostility of the microenvironment preventing axonal regrowth has been linked to key molecular targets involving myelin-associated factors and glial scar components. While the mechanisms involved are better understood now and potential therapeutic targets are identified, the crucial question whether manipulating the molecular regulation of axonal repair is feasible and will benefit patients remains uncertain. While factual repair of brain tissue may still be years away, research into the mechanisms of adaptation after brain injury offers more tangible return on the short run.
识别中枢神经系统(CNS)在损伤后自我重塑的策略,激发了人们对促进CNS损伤后神经功能恢复方法的系统探索。已有多种药物被证明可促进这种恢复;然而,需要更严格的临床试验来确定它们的临床相关性。这些策略在临床应用中的主要障碍是围绕神经可塑性和再生的惊人异质性。对损伤的耐受性和不同的恢复速度可能受遗传和环境因素的支配,而这些因素在很大程度上仍不清楚。CNS神经网络的极度复杂性阻碍了在治疗试验中对“单纯”药物干预的评估。因此,增强神经可塑性或再生的药物干预的“原理验证”研究可能首先关注替代标志物,如功能磁共振成像、脑磁图和扩散张量成像,或者研究看似更一致的系统,如脊髓损伤。实验表明成年CNS损伤本质上可以再生,这一发现推翻了成年轴突损伤总是永久性的观点,并促使人们研究能否在人类CNS损伤中创造出这种再生发生的条件。阻止轴突再生的微环境的不利因素与涉及髓磷脂相关因子和胶质瘢痕成分的关键分子靶点有关。虽然现在对其中涉及的机制有了更好的理解,并确定了潜在的治疗靶点,但操纵轴突修复的分子调节是否可行以及是否会使患者受益这一关键问题仍不确定。虽然脑组织的实际修复可能仍需数年时间,但对脑损伤后适应机制的研究在短期内能带来更切实的回报。