4.5 Article

Arginine Vasopressin V1a Receptor- Deficient Mice Have Reduced Brain Edema and Secondary Brain Damage following Traumatic Brain Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 30, 期 16, 页码 1442-1448

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2012.2807

关键词

Antidiuretic hormone; arginine vasopressin; brain edema; traumatic brain injury; V-1a receptor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formation of brain edema and subsequent intracranial hypertension are major predictors of unfavorable outcome following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Previously, we reported that arginine vasopressin (AVP) receptor antagonists reduce post-traumatic and post-ischemic brain edema in mice. The aim of the current study was to investigate further the contribution of arginine vasopressin V-1a receptors to TBI-induced secondary brain damage in V-1a receptor knock-out mice. V-1a receptor knock-out (V-1a -/-) and wild-type mice were subjected to controlled cortical impact (CCI), and edema (brain water content measured before and 24 h after CCI), primary and secondary contusion volume (15 min and 24 h after CCI), neurological function (one day before and seven days after CCI), body weight (before and seven days after CCI) and mortality were measured. Twenty-four h after CCI, V1a receptor knock-out mice had significantly less brain water content than wild-type mice (mean +/- standard error of the mean: 79.8% +/- 0.3 vs. 80.6% +/- 0.2, respectively), and secondary contusion volume was significantly smaller (38.2 +/- 1.7 mm(3) vs. 45.1 +/- 1.5 mm(3) in wild-type mice). Furthermore, the V1a receptor knock-out mice had less neurological dysfunction (3.2 +/- 0.8 vs. 7.0 +/- 1.4 in wild-type mice) and weight loss (1.0 +/- 1.0% vs. 4.9 +/- 1.8% in wild-type mice) seven days after CCI. Our data show that mice lacking V1a receptors have less secondary brain damage following experimental traumatic brain injury. We therefore conclude that V-1a receptors may represent a novel drug target for preventing post-traumatic brain edema.

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