{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0348993288590604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006040268456375839, 'mean_word_length': 5.110655737704918, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The differential effects of pathway- versus target-derived glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor on peripheral nerve regeneration.

OBJECT
Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) has potent survival effects on central and peripheral nerve populations. The authors examined the differential effects of GDNF following either a sciatic nerve crush injury in mice that overexpressed GDNF in the central or peripheral nervous systems (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP]-GDNF) or in the muscle target (Myo-GDNF).


METHODS
Adult mice (GFAP-GDNF, Myo-GDNF, or wild-type [WT] animals) underwent sciatic nerve crush and were evaluated using histomorphometry and muscle force and power testing. Uninjured WT animals served as controls.


RESULTS
In the sciatic nerve crush, the Myo-GDNF mice demonstrated a higher number of nerve fibers, fiber density, and nerve percentage (p < 0.05) at 2 weeks. The early regenerative response did not result in superlative functional recovery. At 3 weeks, GFAP-GDNF animals exhibit fewer nerve fibers, decreased fiber width, and decreased nerve percentage compared with WT and Myo-GDNF mice (p < 0.05). By 6 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Peripheral delivery of GDNF resulted in earlier regeneration following sciatic nerve crush injuries than that with central GDNF delivery. Treatment with neurotrophic factors such as GDNF may offer new possibilities for the treatment of peripheral nerve injury.