Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 14;12:632028. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.632028

FIGURE 8.

FIGURE 8

(A): Representative 40× and 100× photomicrographs of lumbar spinal cord ventral grey horn immunostained for NeuN at Week 4 and Week 6 post-injury. Note less number of NeuN-immunostained neurons in the sciatic nerve-injured group (CRUSH) compared to the SHAM group. The number of the NeuN-immunoreactive neurons are remarkably more in the CRUSH + SPF-FB(IP) and CRUSH + SPF-FB (S.C.)-treated groups compared to the CRUSH group. (B): Bar graph shows the number of NeuN-immunoreactive neurons in the ipsilateral ventral grey horn at Week 4 and Week 6 post-injury. Note the significant decrease in the number of NeuN-immunostained neurons in the CRUSH group. Further, the number of neurons significantly increased in the CRUSH + SPF-FB (IP) and CRUSH + SPF-FB(S.C.)-treated groups at Week 4 and Week 6 post-injury. * indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH vs. all groups; ¥ indicates p < 0.003 CRUSH + SPF-FB(IP) and CRUSH + SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. SHAM; Φ indicates p < 0.008 CRUSH vs. CRUSH + SPF-FB(S.C.); ** indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH + SPF-FB(IP) and CRUSH + SPF-FB (S.C.) vs. SHAM. (C): Bar graph shows the number of NeuN-immunoreactive neurons in the ipsilateral dorsal grey horn at week 4 and week 6 post-injury. Similarly, note the significant decrease in the number of neurons in the CRUSH group. In contrast, IP and S.C. SPF-FB treatments significantly increased the number of NeuN-immunoreactive neurons compared to CRUSH animals. * indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH vs. All groups; ¥ indicates p < 0.02 CRUSH + SPF-FB(IP) and CRUSH + SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. SHAM; Φ indicates p < 0.004 CRUSH + 0.5X SPF-FB(IP) and CRUSH + 1X SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. SHAM.