Departament de Bioquímica, Unitat de Bioquímica, Institut de Neurociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
ICREA, Barcelona, Spain.
ASN Neuro. 2023 Jan-Dec;15:17590914231197523. doi: 10.1177/17590914231197523.
Scientific progress requires the relentless correction of errors and refinement of hypotheses. Clarity of terminology is essential for clarity of thought and proper experimental interrogation of nature. Therefore, the application of the same scientific term to different and even conflicting phenomena and concepts is not useful and must be corrected. Such abuse of terminology has happened and is still increasing in the case of "neuroinflammation," a term that until the 1990s meant classical inflammation affecting the central nervous system (CNS) and thereon was progressively used to mostly denote microglia activation. The resulting confusion is very wasteful and detrimental not only for scientists but also for patients, given the numerous failed clinical trials in acute and chronic CNS diseases over the last decade with "anti-inflammatory" drugs. Despite this failure, reassessments of the "neuroinflammation" concept are rare, especially considering the number of articles still using the term. This undesirable situation motivates this article. We review the origins and evolution of the term "neuroinflammation," discuss the unique tissue defense and repair strategies in the CNS, define CNS immunity, and emphasize the notion of gliopathies to help readdress, if not bury, the term "neuroinflammation" as it stands in the way of scientific progress.
科学进步需要不断纠正错误和完善假设。术语的清晰性对于清晰的思维和对自然的适当实验探究至关重要。因此，将同一个科学术语应用于不同甚至相互矛盾的现象和概念是没有用的，必须加以纠正。这种术语滥用已经发生，并且在“神经炎症”的情况下仍在增加，这个术语在 20 世纪 90 年代之前意味着影响中枢神经系统 (CNS) 的经典炎症，此后逐渐被用于主要表示小胶质细胞的激活。这种由此产生的混乱不仅对科学家，而且对患者来说都是非常浪费和有害的，因为在过去十年中，大量急性和慢性中枢神经系统疾病的临床试验都使用了“抗炎”药物，但都失败了。尽管如此，对“神经炎症”概念的重新评估仍然很少，尤其是考虑到仍有大量文章在使用该术语。这种不理想的情况促使我们撰写了这篇文章。我们回顾了“神经炎症”一词的起源和演变，讨论了中枢神经系统中独特的组织防御和修复策略，定义了中枢神经系统免疫，并强调了神经胶质疾病的概念，以帮助重新审视（如果不是埋葬的话）“神经炎症”这个术语，因为它阻碍了科学的进步。
