Early detection of axonal injury after human head trauma using immunocytochemistry for β-amyloid precursor protein
- 359 Downloads
Severe non-missile head injury commonly results in a form of brain damage known as diffuse axonal injury (DAI). The histological diagnosis of DAI is made by silver staining for the presence of axonal retraction balls. This feature takes about 24 h to develop and does not allow for the early histological diagnosis of DAI. We have used immunocytochemistry for the β-amyloid precursor protein (βAPP) as a marker for axonal injury in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections of human brain. Axonal βAPP immunoreativity was present in all cases which had survived for 3 h or more. This was true even where the degree of head injury did not appear to be severe, supporting the theory that DAI is a severe form of a more common phenomenon of axonal injury which occurs after cerebral trauma. βAPP immunoreactivity was also found in some non-head injured cases and so cannot be considered to be a specific marker for trauma. The results show that βAPP immunocytochemistry may be useful in the detection of traumatic axonal injury in its early stages, before the formation of axonal retraction balls, provided care is taken to exclude other causes of such immunoreactivity.
Key wordsAmyloid beta-protein precursor Diagnostic tests, routine Diffuse axonal injury Head injuries Immunocytochemistry
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Adams JH (1992) Head injury, In: Adams JH, Duchen LW (eds) Greenfield's neuropathology. Edward Arnold, London, pp 106–152Google Scholar
- 16.Pilz P (1983) Axonal injury in head injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien) [Suppl] 32: 119–123Google Scholar
- 18.Povlishock JT, Becker DP, Cheng CLY, Vaughan GW (1983) Axonal changes in minor head injury. J Neuropathol Exp Neurobiol 42: 225–242Google Scholar
- 23.Yaghmai A, Povlishock JT (1992) Traumatically induced reactive change as visualised through the use of monoclonal antibodies targeted to neurofilament subunits. J Neuropathol Exp Neurobiol 51: 158–176Google Scholar