Cited by 77Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Inhibition of injury-induced cell proliferation in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus impairs spontaneous cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury

Open access
Sun, Dong, Daniels, Teresa E., Rolfe, Andrew, Waters, Michael, Hamm, Robert·2015·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

Neurogenesis persists throughout life in the neurogenic regions of the mature mammalian brain, and this response is enhanced after traumatic brain injury (TBI). In the hippocampus, adult neurogenesis plays an important role in hippocampal-dependent learning and memory functions and is thought to contribute to the spontaneous cognitive recovery observed after TBI. Utilizing an antimitotic agent, arabinofuranosyl cytidine (Ara-C), the current study investigated the direct association of injury-induced hippocampal neurogenesis with cognitive recovery. In this study, adult rats received a moderate lateral fluid percussion injury followed by a 7-day intraventricular infusion of 2% Ara-C or vehicle. To examine the effect of Ara-C on cell proliferation, animals received intraperitoneal injections of 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU), to label dividing cells, and were sacrificed at 7 days after injury. Brain sections were immunostained for BrdU or doublecortin (DCX), and the total number of BrdU(+) or DCX(+) cells in the hippocampus was quantified. To examine the outcome of inhibiting the injury-induced cell proliferative response on cognitive recovery, animals were assessed on Morris water maze (MWM) tasks at 21-25 or 56-60 days postinjury. We found that a 7-day infusion of Ara-C significantly reduced the total number of BrdU(+) and DCX(+) cells in the dentate gyrus (DG) in both hemispheres. Moreover, inhibition of the injury-induced cell proliferative response in the DG completely abolished the innate cognitive recovery on MWM performance at 56-60 days postinjury. These results support the causal relationship of injury-induced hippocampal neurogenesis on cognitive functional recovery and suggest the importance of this endogenous repair mechanism on restoration of hippocampal function.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/neu.2014.3545

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Brain injury models such as stroke, seizure, and blunt trauma all increase the rate of adult neurogenesis, yet each of these conditions is associated with reduced cognitive function.

    “Brain injury models, such as stroke, seizure, and blunt trauma, all increase the rate of adult neurogenesis (Table 1), yet each of these conditions is associated with reduced cognitive function (Cuartero et al., 2019; Parent and Lowenstein, 2002; Sun et al., 2015).”

    From Adult neurogenesis, glia, and the extracellular matrix (2019) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]Dash P.K., Mach S.A., and Moore A.N. (2001). Enhanced neurogenesis in the rodent hippocampus following traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosci. Res. 63, 313–319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [27]Coggeshall R.E., and Lekan H.A. (1996). Methods for determining numbers of cells and synapses: a case for more uniform standards of review. J. Comp. Neurol. 364, 6–15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, D., Daniels, T. E., Rolfe, A., Waters, M., & Hamm, R.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Sun, Dong
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2015-04
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
495-505
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W2331252089
Cited by
77
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurotrauma (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS055086, NS078710, P30NS047463, R01NS055086, R21NS078710)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, adult neurogenesis, dentate gyrus, hippocampus, cognitive recovery, antimitotic agents, cell proliferation, lateral fluid percussion injury, doublecortin, BrdU labeling, spatial learning and memory, endogenous repair
MeSH terms
Doublecortin Protein, Animals, Brain Injuries, Cognition, Cytarabine, Male, Neurons, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Maze Learning, Dentate Gyrus, Recovery of Function, Cell Proliferation, Rats, Neurogenesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review