4.4 Article

The antioxidative, non-psychoactive tricyclic phenothiazine reduces brain damage after experimental traumatic brain injury in mice

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 584, Issue -, Pages 253-258

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.10.037

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury; Oxidative stress; Phenothiazine; Controlled cortical impact; Mice

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oxidative stress due to free radical formation is an important mechanism of secondary brain damage following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Phenothiazine has been found to be a strong antioxidant in eukaryotic cells in vitro and in invertebrates in vivo. The present study was designed to determine the neuroprotective potency of unsubstituted phenothiazine in a paradigm of acute brain injury. Thirty minutes after pneumatic, controlled cortical impact (CCI) injury, C57BI6 mice were randomly assigned to low dose (3 mg/kg, LD) or high dose (30 mg/kg, HD) s.c. phenothiazine or vehicle treatment. Brain lesion, neurofunctional impairment, body weight, and markers of cerebral inflammation were determined 24 h after the insult. Phenothiazine treatment dose-dependently reduced brain lesion volume (LD: -19.8%; HD: -26.1%) and posttraumatic body weight loss. There were no significant differences in the neurological function score and in markers of cerebral inflammation (Iba-1 positive cells, TNF alpha expression), whereas iNOS expression was significantly lower compared to vehicle-treated animals. Phenothiazine appears to modify in a post-treatment protocol certain aspects of secondary brain damage in vivo at unusually low concentrations, in particular the cortical contusion volume after TBI. The potential role of the reduced iNOS expression is unclear at present. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available