4.6 Article

General Anesthetics Inhibit Erythropoietin Induction under Hypoxic Conditions in the Mouse Brain

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029378

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22659283, 21591992, 22390298, 22659282, 21249081] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Erythropoietin (EPO), originally identified as a hematopoietic growth factor produced in the kidney and fetal liver, is also endogenously expressed in the central nervous system (CNS). EPO in the CNS, mainly produced in astrocytes, is induced under hypoxic conditions in a hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-dependent manner and plays a dominant role in neuroprotection and neurogenesis. We investigated the effect of general anesthetics on EPO expression in the mouse brain and primary cultured astrocytes. Methodology/Principal Findings: BALB/c mice were exposed to 10% oxygen with isoflurane at various concentrations (0.10-1.0%). Expression of EPO mRNA in the brain was studied, and the effects of sevoflurane, halothane, nitrous oxide, pentobarbital, ketamine, and propofol were investigated. In addition, expression of HIF-2 alpha protein was studied by immunoblotting. Hypoxia-induced EPO mRNA expression in the brain was significantly suppressed by isoflurane in a concentration-dependent manner. A similar effect was confirmed for all other general anesthetics. Hypoxia-inducible expression of HIF-2 alpha protein was also significantly suppressed with isoflurane. In the experiments using primary cultured astrocytes, isoflurane, pentobarbital, and ketamine suppressed hypoxia-inducible expression of HIF-2 alpha protein and EPO mRNA. Conclusions/Significance: Taken together, our results indicate that general anesthetics suppress activation of HIF-2 and inhibit hypoxia-induced EPO upregulation in the mouse brain through a direct effect on astrocytes.

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