4.6 Article

Inhibition of the Epigenetic Regulator REST Ameliorates Ischemic Brain Injury

期刊

MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 4, 页码 2542-2550

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-018-1254-y

关键词

Cerebral ischemia; Transcription factor; Synaptic plasticity; Neurodegeneration; BDNF; Neuron-restrictive silencing factor

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [R21NS095192, RO1 NS099531, RO1 NS101960]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerebral ischemia is known to activate the repressor element-1 (RE1)-silencing transcription factor (REST) which silences neural genes via epigenetic remodeling and promotes neurodegeneration. We presently determined if REST inhibition derepresses target genes involved in synaptic plasticity and promotes functional outcome after experimental stroke. Following transient focal ischemia induced by middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) in adult rats, REST expression was upregulated significantly from 12h to 1day of reperfusion compared to sham control. At 1day of reperfusion, REST protein levels were increased and observed in the nuclei of neurons in the peri-infarct cortex. REST knockdown by intracerebral REST siRNA injection significantly reduced the post-ischemic expression of REST and increased the expression of several REST target genes, compared to control siRNA group. REST inhibition also decreased post-ischemic markers of apoptosis, reduced cortical infarct volume, and improved post-ischemic functional recovery on days 5 and 7 of reperfusion compared to the control siRNA group. REST knockdown resulted in a global increase in synaptic plasticity gene expression at 1day of reperfusion compared to the control siRNA group and significantly increased several synaptic plasticity genes containing RE-1 sequences in their regulatory regions. These results demonstrate that direct inhibition of the epigenetic remodeler REST prevents secondary brain damage in the cortex and improves functional outcome potentially via de-repression of plasticity-related genes after stroke.

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

4.6
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