4.7 Article

Beneficial effects of rolipram in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF DISEASE
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 375-387

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2008.02.010

关键词

phosphodiesterase inhibitors; CREB; Huntington's disease; transgenic mouse; confocal microscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously showed that rolipram, a phosphodiesterase type IV inhibitor, displays a neuroprotective effect in a rat quinolinic acid model of HD [DeMarch Z., Giampa C., Patassini S., Martorana A., Bernardi G. and Fusco F. R., (2007) Beneficial effects of rolipram in a quinolinic acid model of striatal excitotoxicity. Neurobiol. Dis. 25:266-273.]. In this study, we sought to determine if rolipram exerts a neuroprotective effect in R6/2 mutant mice, which recapitulates, in many aspects, human HD [Mangiarini L., Sathasivam K., Seller M., Cozens B., Harper A., Hetherington C., Lawton M., Trottier Y., Lehrach H., Davies S.W. and Bates G.P. (1996) Exon 1 of the HD gene with an expanded CAG repeat is sufficient to cause a progressive neurological phenotype in transgenic mice. Cell. 87:493-506]. Transgenic mice were treated with rolipram 1.5 mg/kg daily starting from 4 weeks of age. After transcardial perfusion, histological and immunohistochemical studies were performed. We found that rolipram-treated R6/2 mice survived longer and displayed less severe signs of neurological dysfunction than the vehicle treated ones. Primary outcome measures such as brain volume, striatal atrophy, size and morphology of striatal neurons, neuronal intranuclear inclusions and microglial reaction confirmed a neuroprotective effect of the compound. Rolipram was effective in increasing significantly the levels of activated CREB and of BDNF the striatal spiny neurons, which might account for the beneficial effects observed in this model. Our findings show that rolipram could be considered as a valid therapeutic approach for HD. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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