4.7 Article

Combination of cyclosporine and erythropoietin improves brain infarct size and neurological function in rats after ischemic stroke

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-141

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University [CMRPG 880431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study tested the superiority of combined cyclosporine A (CsA)-erythropoietin (EPO) therapy compared with either one in limiting brain infarction area (BIA) and preserving neurological function in rat after ischemic stroke (IS). Methods: Fifty adult-male SD rats were equally divided into sham control (group 1), IS plus intra-peritoneal physiological saline (at 0.5/24/48 h after IS) (group 2), IS plus CsA (20.0 mg/kg at 0.5/24h, intra-peritoneal) (group 3), IS plus EPO (5,000IU/kg at 0.5/24/48h, subcutaneous) (group 4), combined CsA and EPO (same route and dosage as groups 3 and 4) treatment (group 5) after occlusion of distal left internal carotid artery. Results: BIA on day 21 after acute IS was higher in group 2 than in other groups and lowest in group 5 (all p < 0.01). The sensorimotor functional test showed higher frequency of left turning in group 2 than in other groups and lowest in group 5 (all p < 0.05). mRNA and protein expressions of apoptotic markers and number of apoptotic nuclei on TUNEL were higher in group 2 than in other groups and lowest in group 1 and 5, whereas the antiapoptotic markers exhibited an opposite trend (all p < 0.05). The expressions of inflammatory and oxidized protein were higher in group 2 than in other groups and lowest in group 1 and 5, whereas anti-inflammatory markers showed reversed changes in group 1 and other groups (all p < 0.05). The number of aquaporin-4+ and glial fibrillary acid protein+ stained cells were higher in group 2 as compared to other groups and lowest in groups 1 and 5 (all p < 0.01). Conclusion: combined treatment with CsA and EPO was superior to either one alone in protecting rat brain from ischemic damage after IS.

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

4.7
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