4.6 Article

Propofol protects against blood-spinal cord barrier disruption induced by ischemia/reperfusion injury

Journal

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 125-132

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.199004

Keywords

nerve regeneration; spinal cord ischemia reperfusion injury; blood-spinal cord barrier; propofol; matrix metalloprotease-9; nuclear factor-kappa B; tight junction proteins; neural regeneration

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China [2013CFB086]
  2. Basic Research Funds of the Huazhong University of Science & Technology of China [2016YXZD024]
  3. Scientific Research Project of the Health and Family Planning Commission of Hubei Province of China [W12015MB023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Propofol has been shown to exert neuroprotective effects on the injured spinal cord. However, the effect of propofol on the blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) after ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is poorly understood. Therefore, we investigated whether propofol could maintain the integrity of the BSCB. Spinal cord IRI (SCIRI) was induced in rabbits by infrarenal aortic occlusion for 30 minutes. Propofol, 30 mg/kg, was intravenously infused 10 minutes before aortic clamping as well as at the onset of reperfusion. Then, 48 hours later, we performed histological and mRNA/protein analyses of the spinal cord. Propofol decreased histological damage to the spinal cord, attenuated the reduction in BSCB permeability, downregulated the mRNA and protein expression levels of matrix metalloprotease-9 (MMP-9) and nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappa B), and upregulated the protein expression levels of occludin and claudin-5. Our findings suggest that propofol helps maintain BSCB integrity after SCIRI by reducing MMP-9 expression, by inhibiting the NF-kappa B signaling pathway, and by maintaining expression of tight junction proteins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available