The combined effect of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment and exercise in rats with spinal cord injury

Abstract

Objective: To identify that the combined G-CSF and treadmill exercise is more effective in functional recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI).

Design: Rats were divided into 4 groups: a SCI group treated with G-CSF (G-CSF group, n = 6), a SCI group treated with treadmill exercise plus G-CSF (G-CSF/exercise group, n = 6), a SCI group with treadmill exercise (exercise group, n = 6), and a SCI group without treatments (control group, n = 6). We performed laminectomy at the T8–10 spinal levels with compression injury of the spinal cord in all rats. G-CSF (20 μg/ml) was administered intraperitoneally for 5 consecutive days after SCI in G-CSF and G-CSF/exercise groups. From one week after surgery, animals in G-CSF/exercise and exercise groups received 30 min of exercise 5 days per week for 4 weeks. Functional recoveries were assessed using the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) scale and the inclined plane test. Five weeks after SCI, hematoxylin and eosin staining for cavity size and immunohistochemistry for glial scar formation and neuro-regeneration factor expression were conducted.

Setting: Inha University School of medicine, Incheon, Korea

Results: Rats in G-CSF/exercise group showed the most effective functional recovery in the BBB scale and the inclined plane test, and spinal cord cavity size by injury were the smallest, and immunohistochemistry revealed expression of higher BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) and VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) and lower GFAP (glial fibrillary acidic protein) than others.

Conclusion: Combined treatment provided more effective neuroplasty and functional recovery than individual treatments.

Keywords:

• G-CSF
• Spinal cord injury
• Exercise
• BDNF
• VEGF
• GFAP

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant.

Disclaimer statements

Contributors None.

Funding This project obtained funding from INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant [56855].

Conflict of interest No author had any conflict of interest in the completion of this work.

Ethics approval None.