4.5 Article

Differential neuroprotective properties of endogenous and exogenous erythropoietin in a mouse model of traumatic brain injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 112-123

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2007.0358

关键词

cerebral edema; closed head injury; heat acclimation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both heat acclimation (HA) and post-injury treatment with recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo, rhEpo, exogenous Epo) are neuroprotective against traumatic brain injury (TBI). Our previous data demonstrated that HA-induced neuroprotection includes improved functional recovery and reduced cerebral edema formation. Additionally, in earlier Western-blot analyses, we found that HA mice display increased expression of the specific erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) and of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1 alpha), the inducible subunit of the transcription factor, which regulates Epo gene expression, but not of Epo itself. In light of this, the aim of the current study was threefold: (1) to assess Epo expression in the trauma area and hippocampus following HA, rhEpo administration, or combined HA-rhEpo treatment, using immunohistochemical methods that offer enhanced anatomical resolution; (2) to examine the effects of endogenous and exogenous Epo on edema formation in normothermic (NT) mice; and (3) to evaluate the effects of exogenous Epo administration on neuroprotective outcome measures in HA animals. HA induced enhanced expression of endogenous Epo in the trauma area and the hippocampus. Treatment with anti-Epo antibody given to NT mice increased edema formation, whereas rhEpo induced no beneficial effect. Cognitive performance testing and immunohistochemical findings reinforced HA and rhEpo as separate protective interventions but showed no advantage to combining the two strategies. We therefore suggest that HA-induced neuroprotection is shaped by pre-existing mediators but cannot be modified by post-injury treatment aimed at increasing the levels of neuroprotective agents.

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