Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2021 Apr 14;12:632028. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.632028

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2021 Renno, Afzal, Paul, Nair, Kumar and Al-Hassan.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

PMC Copyright notice

(A): Representative 40× and 100× photomicrographs of lumbar spinal cord ventral grey horn immunostained for GFAP at Week 4 and Week 6 post-injury. Note an increasing number of GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes in the CRUSH group compared to the SHAM and IP and S.C. SPF-FB-treated groups. (B): Bar graph shows the number of GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes in the ipsilateral ventral grey horn at week 4 and week 6 post-injury. Note the significant increase in the number of GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes in the CRUSH group. In contrast, the number of GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes significantly decreased in the CRUSH + 1X SPF-FB(S.C.) and CRUSH + 0.5X SPF-FB(S.C.)-treated groups. * indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH vs. All groups; ¥ indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH + 1X SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. all groups; Φ indicates p < 0.002 CRUSH + 0.5X SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. CRUSH and CRUSH + SPF-FB (IP). (C): Bar graph shows the number of GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes in the ipsilateral dorsal grey horn at week 4 and week 6 post-injury. Note the significant increase in GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes in the CRUSH group compared to all experimental groups. Moreover, IP and S.C. SPF-FB treatments significantly decrease the number of GFAP-immunoreactive astrocytes at Week 4 and Week 6 following sciatic nerve injury. * indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH vs. All groups; ¥ indicates p < 0.02 CRUSH + 1X SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. SHAM; Φ indicates p < 0.01 CRUSH + 0.5X SPF-FB(IP) vs. SHAM; ** indicates p < 0.001 CRUSH + 1X SPF-FB(S.C.) vs. SHAM. (D): Western blot analysis of GFAP in the lumbar spinal cords at Week 4 and Week 6 following nerve injury. (E): Bar graph shows the GFAP density in spinal cord samples. Note significantly decreased GFAP content in the CRUSH + 0.5X SPF-FB-FB (IP) spinal cords-treated groups. * indicates p < 0.0001 NAÏVE vs. All groups; ¥ indicates p < 0.0001 SHAM vs. CRUSH; # indicates p < 0.004 SHAM vs. CRUSH + 01X SPF-FB(S.C.) and CRUSH + 2X SPF-FB(S.C.); Φ indicates p < 0.002 CRUSH vs. CRUSH + SPF-FB(IP); Ψ indicates p < 0.003 SHAM vs. CRUSH + 0.5X SPF-FB(IP); α indicates p < 0.0001 CRUSH vs. NAÏVE and SHAM; ** indicates p < 0.05 CRUSH + 0.05X SPF-FB(IP) vs. CRUSH.