4.5 Article

eNOS gene deletion restores blood-brain barrier integrity and attenuates neurodegeneration in the thiamine-deficient mouse brain

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 452-459

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06338.x

关键词

blood-brain barrier; endothelial nitric oxide synthase; neuronal cell death; thiamine deficiency; Wernicke's encephalopathy

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. University of Montreal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wernicke's encephalopathy is a cerebral disorder caused by thiamine (vitamin B-1) deficiency (TD). Neuropathologic consequences of TD include region-selective neuronal cell loss and blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown. Early increased expression of the endothelial isoform of nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) occurs selectively in vulnerable brain regions in TD. We hypothesize that region-selective eNOS induction in TD leads to altered expression of tight junction proteins and BBB breakdown. In order to address this issue, TD was induced in C57BL/6 wild-type (WT) and eNOS-/- mice by feeding a thiamine-deficient diet and treatment with the thiamine antagonist pyrithiamine. Pair-fed control mice were fed the same diet with additional thiamine. In medial thalamus of TD-WT mice (vulnerable area), increased heme oxygenase-1 and S-nitrosocysteine immunostaining was observed in vessel walls, compared to pair-fed control-WT mice. Concomitant increases in IgG extravasation, decreases in expression of the tight junction proteins occludin, zona occludens-1 and zona occludens-2, and up-regulation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 in endothelial cells were observed in the medial thalamus of TD-WT mice. eNOS gene deletion restored these BBB alterations, suggesting that eNOS-derived nitric oxide is a major factor leading to cerebrovascular alterations in TD. However, eNOS gene deletion only partially attenuated TD-related neuronal cell loss, suggesting the presence of mechanisms additional to BBB disruption in the pathogenesis of these changes.

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