4.5 Article

Intrinsic and extrinsic erythropoietin enhances neuroprotection against ischemia and reperfusion injury in vitro

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
Volume 96, Issue 4, Pages 1101-1110

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03597.x

Keywords

erythropoietin; hypoxia-inducible factor-1; hypoxia/ischemia injury; neuroprotection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to investigate the neuroprotective effect of intrinsic and extrinsic erythropoietin (EPO) against hypoxia/ischemia, and determine the optimal time-window with respect to the EPO-induced neuroprotection. Experiments were conducted using primary mixed neuronal/astrocytic cultures and neuron-rich cultures. Hypoxia (2%) induces hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1 alpha) activity followed by strong EPO expression in mixed cultures and weak expression in neuron-rich cultures as documented by both western blot and RT-PCR. Immunoreactive EPO was strongly detected in astrocytes, whereas EPOR was only detected in neurons. Neurons were significantly damaged in neuron-rich cultures but were distinctly rescued in mixed cultures. Application of recombinant human EPO (rhEPO) (0.1 U/mL) within 6 h before or after hypoxia significantly increased neuronal survival compared with no rhEPO treatment. Application of rhEPO after onset of reoxygenation achieved the maximal neuronal protection against ischemia/reperfusion injury (6 h hypoxia followed 24 h reoxygenation). Our results indicate that HIF-1 alpha induces EPO gene released by astrocytes and acts as an essential mediator of neuroprotection, prove the protective role of intrinsic astrocytic-neuronal signaling pathway in hypoxic/ischemic injury and demonstrate an optimal therapeutic time-window of extrinsic rhEPO in ischemia/reperfusion injury in vitro. The results point to the potential beneficial effects of HIF-1 alpha and EPO for the possible treatment of stroke.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available