| Literature DB >> 33922090 |
Jin Young Hong1, Hyunseong Kim1, Wan-Jin Jeon1, Junseon Lee1, In-Hyuk Ha1.
Abstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common neurodegenerative condition. However, how neurogenic claudication develops with severe leg pain has not yet been clearly elucidated. Moreover, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) physiology at the lumbosacral level is poorly understood because of the difficulties involved in quantification and visualization. Recent studies have suggested that assessment of mitochondrial function in CSF provides an indirect way to assess neurological disorders and an important feature of disease progression. In this study, we assessed the relevance of endogenous extracellular mitochondria in the CSF of rats after LSS. Mitochondrial changes within the CSF were analyzed following LSS at 1 week using flow cytometry. An increase in cell size and number was observed in CSF with LSS, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels were also increased within the CSF at 1 week in the LSS group. Elevated mitochondrial ROS and functional changes in the CSF are hallmarks of LSS. The present study is the first to demonstrate that elevated mitochondrial ROS within the CSF is a new index for the early detection of LSS. Moreover, it may represent a potential novel treatment target for LSS.Entities:
Keywords: cerebrospinal fluid; lumbar spinal stenosis; mitochondria; reactive oxygen species
Year: 2021 PMID: 33922090 PMCID: PMC8143471 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050748
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1LSS surgical procedure and technical collection of CSF. (A) Surgical images after L5 laminectomy for making the LSS model. (B) Appearance of silicone implantation into L4 level through exposed L5 level using fine forcep. (C) Rat brain atlas to show the cisterna magna for CSF collection. (D) Construction of draw syringe and depth marking with three millimeter in the needle. (E) The position of rat’s head at approximately 45° and appearance of collecting the CSF from cisterna magna in rat. (F,G) Ladder (F) and BBB (G) assessment for confirm the standardized LSS model. Data are expressed as the means ± SEM. Significant differences indicated as *** p < 0.001 vs. the sham group were analyzed via unpaired t test with Welch’s correction.
Figure 2Flow cytometric cell number and size analysis in CSF after LSS. (A) Representative flow cytometry dot blot of the cell number and size in sham and LSS groups using the forward scatter (FSC) parameters. (B) Flow cytometric percentages of large cells and (C) number of cells per 1 μL within the CSF in sham and LSS groups. Data are expressed as the means ± SEM. Significant differences indicated as * p < 0.05 vs. the sham group were analyzed via unpaired t test with Welch’s correction.
Figure 3Analysis of extracellular mitochondrial mass within CSF after given LSS. (A) Representative flow cytometry dot blot of the MitoTracker Deep Red FM in sham and LSS groups. (B) Flow cytometric quantification of MitoTracker within the CSF in sham and LSS groups. (C) Real-time PCR based of mtDNA/nDNA ratio in sham and LSS groups. Data are expressed as the means ± SEM. Significant differences indicated as * p < 0.05 vs. the sham group were analyzed via unpaired t test with Welch’s correction.
Figure 4Analysis of cellular ROS and mitochondrial ROS production within CSF after LSS. (A) Representative flow cytometry dot blot of the ROS production in sham and LSS models using the FSC parameters. (B) Flow cytometric quantification of cellular ROS level within the CSF in sham and LSS groups. (C) Representative flow cytometry dot blot of the mitochondrial ROS (MitoSOX) in sham and LSS groups using the FSC parameters. (D) Flow cytometric quantification of MitoSOX within the CSF in sham and LSS groups. Data are expressed as the means ± SEM. Significant differences indicated as * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 vs. the sham group were analyzed via unpaired t test with Welch’s correction.
Figure 5Assessment of MMP within CSF after given LSS. (A) Representative flow cytometry dot blot of the TMRM in sham and LSS models using the FSC parameters. (B) Flow cytometric quantification of TMRM within the CSF in sham and LSS models. Data are expressed as the means ± SEM. Significant differences indicated as * p < 0.05 vs. the sham group were analyzed via unpaired t test with Welch’s correction.