4.7 Article

Low dose methamphetamine mediates neuroprotection through a PI3K-AKT pathway

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 677-686

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.05.010

关键词

Stroke; Methamphetamine; Dopamine; Neuroprotection

资金

  1. [MBRCT09-51]
  2. [R01AG031184-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High doses of methamphetamine induce the excessive release of dopamine resulting in neurotoxicity. However, moderate activation of dopamine receptors can promote neuroprotection. Therefore, we used in vitro and in vivo models of stroke to test the hypothesis that low doses of methamphetamine could induce neuroprotection. We demonstrate that methamphetamine does induce a robust, dose-dependent, neuroprotective response in rat organotypic hippocampal slice cultures exposed to oxygen glucose deprivation (OGD). A similar dose dependant neuroprotective effect was observed in rats that received an embolic middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). Significant improvements in behavioral outcomes were observed in rats when methamphetamine administration delayed for up to 12 h after MCAO. Methamphetamine-mediated neuroprotection was significantly reduced in slice cultures by the addition of D1 and D2 dopamine receptor antagonist. Treatment of slice cultures with methamphetamine resulted in the dopamine-mediated activation of ART in a PI3K dependant manner. A similar increase in phosphorylated ART was observed in the striatum, cortex and hippocampus of methamphetamine treated rats following MCAO. Methamphetamine-mediated neuroprotection was lost in rats when PI3K activity was blocked by wortmannin. Finally, methamphetamine treatment decreased both cleaved caspase 3 levels in slice cultures following OGD and TUNEL staining within the striatum and cortex in rats following transient MCAO. These data indicate that methamphetamine can mediate neuroprotection through activation of a dopamine/PI3K/AKT-signaling pathway. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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