4.5 Article

ANANDAMIDE RESCUES RETINAL BARRIER PROPERTIES IN MULLER GLIA THROUGH NITRIC OXIDE REGULATION

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 284, 期 -, 页码 536-545

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.10.020

关键词

retina; blood retinal barrier; AEA; NO; Muller glia

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India [27/0214/09/EMR-II]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The blood retinal barrier (BRB) can mitigate deleterious immune response. Dysfunction at the BRB can affect disease progression. Under inflammatory conditions Muller glia produce increased pro-inflammatory factors, like nitric oxide (NO). In this study we describe molecular events at the Muller glia during inflammation which could affect inner BRB properties. Griess assay and 4,5-diaminofluorescein diacetate (DAF-2DA) time-lapse fluorescence were used to measure NO production. Western blot was used to analyze the expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) components. Lucifer Yellow was used to measure permeability. Griess assay and DAF-2DA time-lapse fluorescence images revealed that lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induced inflammation and increased NO production. In parallel, changes were observed in tight junction proteins, zona occludens 1 (ZO-1), connexin 43 (Cx43), and permeability. This was mediated through activation of iNOS and mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1 (MKP-1), implicated in immune response. Endocannabinoids can exert a protective and anti-inflammatory effect. Exogenous arachidonoyl ethanolamide (AEA) inhibited NO generation and also abolished LPS-induced increase in permeability. Our work suggests that subtle changes in Muller glia function, which act as part of the BRB, could contribute to retinal health. AEA which can reduce inflammatory cytotoxicity has potential as treatment in several ocular manifestations where the integrity of the BRB is crucial. (C) 2014 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据