Search

Abstract Progranulin (PGRN), which is produced in neurons and microglia, is a neurotrophic and anti-inflammatory glycoprotein. Human loss-of-function mutations cause frontotemporal dementia, and PGRN knockout (KO) mice are a model for dementia. In addition, PGRN KO mice exhibit severe phenotypes in models of traumatic or ischemic central nervous system (CNS) disorders, including traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is unknown whether restoration of progranulin expression in neurons (and not in microglia) might be sufficient to prevent excessive TBI-evoked brain damage. To address this question, we generated mice with Nestin-Cre-driven murine PGRN expression in a PGRN KO line (PGRN-KO NestinGrn ) to rescue PGRN in neurons. PGRN expression analysis in primary CNS cell cultures from naïve mice and in (non-) injured brain tissue from PGRN-KO NestinGrn revealed expression of PGRN in neurons but not in microglia. After experimental TBI, examination of the structural brain damage at 5 days post-injury (dpi) showed that the TBI-induced loss of brain tissue and hippocampal neurons was exacerbated in PGRN-KO Grnflfl mice (PGRN knockout with the mGrn fl-STOP-fl allele, Cre-negative), as expected, whereas the tissue damage in PGRN-KO NestinGrn mice was similar to that in PGRN-WT mice. Analysis of CD68+ immunofluorescent microglia and Cd68 mRNA expression showed that excessive microglial activation was rescued in PGRN-KO NestinGrn mice, and the correlation of brain injury with Cd68 expression suggested that Cd68 was a surrogate marker for excessive brain injury caused by PGRN deficiency. The results show that restoring neuronal PGRN expression was sufficient to rescue the exacerbated neuropathology of TBI caused by PGRN deficiency, even in the absence of microglial PGRN. Hence, endogenous microglial PGRN expression was not essential for the neuroprotective or anti-inflammatory effects of PGRN after TBI in this study. Graphical Abstract

Abstract Background The benzodiazepine midazolam is a γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-A receptor agonist frequently used for sedation or stress control in patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, experimental studies on benzodiazepines have reported divergent results, raising concerns about its widespread use in patients. Some studies indicate that benzodiazepine-mediated potentiation of GABAergic neurotransmission is detrimental in brain-injured animals. However, other experimental investigations demonstrate neuroprotective effects, especially in pretreatment paradigms. This study investigated whether single-bolus midazolam administration influences secondary brain damage post-TBI. Methods Two different midazolam dosages (0.5 and 5 mg/kg BW), a combination of midazolam and its competitive antagonist flumazenil, or vehicle solution (NaCl 0.9%) was injected intravenously to mice 24 h after experimental TBI induced by controlled cortical impact. Mice were evaluated for neurological and motor deficits using a 15-point neuroscore and the rotarod test. Histopathological brain damage and mRNA expression of inflammatory marker genes were analyzed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction three days after insult. Results Histological brain damage was not affected by posttraumatic midazolam administration. Midazolam impaired functional recovery, and this effect could not be counteracted by administering the midazolam antagonist flumazenil. An increase in IL-1β mRNA levels due to postinjury application of midazolam was reversible by flumazenil administration. However, other inflammatory parameters were not affected. Conclusions This study merely reports minor effects of a postinjury midazolam application. Further studies focusing on a time-dependent analysis of posttraumatic benzodiazepine administration are required.

Abstract Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability. T cells were shown to infiltrate the brain during the first days after injury and to exacerbate tissue damage. The objective of this study was to investigate the hitherto unresolved role of immunosuppressive, regulatory T cells (Tregs) in experimental TBI. Methods “Depletion of regulatory T cell” (DEREG) and wild type (WT) C57Bl/6 mice, treated with diphtheria toxin (DTx) to deplete Tregs or to serve as control, were subjected to the controlled cortical impact (CCI) model of TBI. Neurological and motor deficits were examined until 5 days post-injury (dpi). At the 5 dpi endpoint, (immuno-) histological, protein, and gene expression analyses were carried out to evaluate the consequences of Tregs depletion. Comparison of parametric or non-parametric data between two groups was done using Student’s t test or the Mann-Whitney U test. For multiple comparisons, p values were calculated by one-way or two-way ANOVA followed by specific post hoc tests. Results The overall neurological outcome at 5 dpi was not different between DEREG and WT mice but more severe motor deficits occurred transiently at 1 dpi in DEREG mice. DEREG and WT mice did not differ in the extent of brain damage, blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption, or neuronal excitotoxicity, as examined by lesion volumetry, immunoglobulin G (IgG) extravasation, or calpain-generated αII-spectrin breakdown products (SBDPs), respectively. In contrast, increased protein levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and GFAP+ astrocytes in the ipsilesional brain tissue indicated exaggerated reactive astrogliosis in DEREG mice. T cell counts following anti-CD3 immunohistochemistry and gene expression analyses of Cd247 (CD3 subunit zeta) and Cd8a (CD8a) further indicated an increased number of T cells infiltrating the brain injury sites of DEREG mice compared to WT. These changes coincided with increased gene expression of pro-inflammatory interferon-γ (Ifng) in DEREG mice compared to WT in the injured brain. Conclusions The results show that the depletion of Tregs attenuates T cell brain infiltration, reactive astrogliosis, interferon-γ gene expression, and transiently motor deficits in murine acute traumatic brain injury.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors opted to correct the following mistakes. According to the title and our results, the conclusions in the abstract and at the end of the discussion the term “attenuates” must be corrected to read as “increases”.