Neuroprotective effects of neurotropin in a mouse model of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury

Neuroprotective effects of neurotropin in a mouse model of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury
复制标题

DOI:
10.1007/s00540-019-02655-z
复制
发表时间:
2019-08-01
影响因子:
2.8
通讯作者:
Matsukawa, Takashi
Matsukawa, Takashi
中科院分区:
医学4区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Hishiyama, Sohei;Kotoda, Masakazu;Matsukawa, Takashi

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

目的缺血缺氧可导致多器官损害。大脑特别脆弱,一旦受损就很难再生。目前,治疗选择非常有限。先前的研究已经报道了neurotropin的神经保护作用,neurotropin是一种非蛋白质提取物,来自接种牛痘病毒的兔子的发炎皮肤,使用外周神经损伤的小鼠模型和培养的细胞系。然而,神经妥乐平是否对脑损伤有保护作用仍不清楚。因此,我们研究了神经妥乐平的神经保护作用和可能的潜在机制,使用小鼠模型的缺氧缺血性脑injury.MethodsHypoxic-ischemic brain injury是诱导通过组合的左颈总动脉闭塞和暴露于缺氧环境(8%的氧气)在成年雄性C57 BL/6小鼠。在诱导缺氧缺血后,小鼠立即接受生理盐水或2.4单位的神经妥乐平。结果与对照组相比,神经妥乐平组的存活率明显提高(100%vs.62.5%,p < 0.01),而对照组的存活率明显降低(100%vs.62.5%,p < 0.01),但神经妥乐平组的存活率明显高于对照组(100%vs.62.5%,p < 0.01)。
PurposeIschemic-hypoxic insult leads to detrimental effects on multiple organs. The brain is especially vulnerable, and it is hard to regenerate once damaged. Currently, therapeutic options are very limited. Previous studies have reported neuroprotective effects of neurotropin, a non-protein extract derived from the inflamed skin of rabbits inoculated with vaccinia virus, using a murine model of peripheral nerve injury and cultured cell lines. However, whether neurotropin might have protective effects against brain injuries remains unclear. We, therefore, investigated the neuroprotective effect of neurotropin and possible underlying mechanisms, using a mouse model of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury.MethodsHypoxic-ischemic brain injury was induced via a combination of the left common carotid artery occlusion and exposure to hypoxic environment (8% oxygen) in adult male C57BL/6 mice. Immediately following induction of hypoxia-ischemia, mice received either saline or 2.4 units of neurotropin. The survival rate, neurological function, infarct volume, and expression of inflammatory cytokines were evaluated.ResultsCompared to the control group, the neurotropin group exhibited a significantly higher survival rate (100% vs. 62.5%, p