Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Neural Plasticity
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 2580837, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2580837
Research Article

In Vivo Expression of Reprogramming Factors Increases Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Synaptic Plasticity in Chronic Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury

Soohyun Wi,1,2 Ji Hea Yu,1,2 MinGi Kim,1,2 and Sung-Rae Cho1,2,3,4

1Department and Research Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea
2Brain Korea 21 PLUS Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea
3Rehabilitation Institute of Neuromuscular Disease, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea
4Yonsei Stem Cell Research Center, Avison Biomedical Research Center, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea

Received 17 June 2016; Revised 25 August 2016; Accepted 21 September 2016

Academic Editor: Yong Jeong

Copyright © 2016 Soohyun Wi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary figure 1: The number of BrdU+ cells in the hippocampus two weeks after the surgical treatment in chronic hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. (A) Schematic timeline of the experiment. (B) The density of BrdU+ cells in the hippocampus was significantly higher in the treatment group than the control group (t = 2.349, p < 0.05). (C) The hippocampus of GFP control group. (D) The hippocampus of treatment group. Both C and D are images of immunohistochemistry results by confocal microscope. Cells with double positive for DAPI and BrdU are indicated with white arrows. Scale bars = 50 µm. *p < 0.05.

Supplementary figure 2: Effects of reprogramming factor expression on neurobehavioral functions in the sham-operated control group and treatment group. (A) Passive avoidance task result showed that there was no significant difference between sham-operated control group (205.7 ± 55.7 seconds) and treatment group (235.7 ± 45.7 seconds) (n = 6 per group). (B) Open field test result showed that there was no significant difference between sham-operated control group (9.1 ± 2.0%) and treatment group (10.3 ± 3.3%) (n = 6 per group).

  1. Supplementary Material