4.5 Article

Protective Effects of Scutellarin Against Cerebral Ischemia in Rats: Evidence for Inhibition of the Apoptosis-inducing Factor Pathway

期刊

PLANTA MEDICA
卷 75, 期 2, 页码 121-126

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1088368

关键词

apoptosis; apoptosis-inducing factor; scutellarin; Erigeron breviscapus (Vant.) Hand-Mazz (Compositae); cerebral ischemia; poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scutellarin (Scu) is the major active principle (flavonoid) extracted from Erigeron breviscapus (Vant.) Hand-Mazz, a Chinese herbal medicine. In this paper, we investigated the effects of Scu on brain injury through the inhibition of AIF-mediated apoptosis induced by transient focal brain ischemia in rats. Rats were treated with Scu for 7 d and then subjected to cerebral ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury induced by a middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). After 2 h of ischemia and 22 h of reperfusion, the infarct volume and the neurological deficit were determined by TTC staining and Longa's score. In situ end-labeling of nuclear DNA fragments (TUNEL) was employed to determine the degree of DNA fragmentation. NAD content and PARP activity in brain homogenate were determined. The expression of AIF in the nucleus was analyzed by Western blot. The present study showed that Scu significantly reduced the infarct volume and ameliorated the neurological deficit. An increase in the number of TUNEL-positive cells and a decrease in the NAD level were also observed after 2 h of ischemia and 22 h of reperfusion. At the same time, Scu (50 and 75 mg kg(-1), i.g.) treatment reversed brain NAD depletion and reduced DNA fragmentation. Scu also inhibited PARP overactivation and AIF translocation from the mitochondria to the nucleus following cerebral I/R. These findings suggested that the neuroprotective effects of Scu on brain ischemic injury-induced apoptosis might be associated with inhibition of PARP-dependent mitochondrial dysfunction and subsequent translocation of AIF.

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