4.6 Article

CORRELATION OF ACUTE PHASE INFLAMMATORY AND OXIDATIVE MARKERS WITH LONG-TERM COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT IN SEPSIS SURVIVORS RATS

期刊

SHOCK
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 45-48

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3182959cfa

关键词

Inflammation; oxidative stress; long-term cognitive dysfunction; BDNF

资金

  1. Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense
  2. NENASC Project (PRONEX Program CNPq/FAPESC)
  3. National Institute of Science and Technology-Translational Medicine (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative damage and inflammation occur early in the brain after sepsis and are resolved when long-term cognitive impairment occurs. There is no information of a direct relation between acute levels of brain inflammation and oxidative damage and long-term cognitive deficits. We hypothesized that higher levels of early oxidative damage and inflammation are followed by long-term cognitive deficits, and this is related to a decrease in the levels of brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF). Wistar rats were subjected to sham operation or cecal ligation and perforation and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was obtained 6 and 24 h after the determination of thiobarbituric acid-reactive species, interleukin 1 (IL-1), IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). Animals were followed until 30 days after surgery and were subjected to the step-down inhibitory avoidance (IA) task, and the hippocampus levels of BDNF were determined. At 6 h, higher CSF levels of thiobarbituric acid-reactive species and TNF-alpha were observed in septic animals that had a better performance in the IA task and presented higher BDNF levels in the hippocampus. At 24 h, higher CSF levels of IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha were observed in septic animals that had a worse performance in the IA task, and this was associated with lower BDNF levels. The persistence of brain inflammation during the acute phase of sepsis is associated with long-term hippocampus levels of BDNF and memory impairment in sepsis survivors.

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