4.5 Article

Protective effect of polysaccharide peptide on cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats

期刊

MOLECULAR MEDICINE REPORTS
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 5371-5378

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2018.9579

关键词

PSP; cerebral IR; apoptosis; SIRT1; PGC-1 signaling pathway; neuroprotective effect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, the protective effects and regulatory mechanism of polysaccharide peptide (PSP) were investigated in rats with cerebral ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury. Neuroblastoma N2a cells were divided into five groups: Negative control; IR injury; PSP low dose treatment; PSP middle dose treatment; and PSP high dose treatment. In vitro, the cell viability was detected by an MTT assay. ELISA was performed to determine the activity of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and caspase-3. A cerebral IR injury model in vivo was established, and hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, western blotting, neurological deficit score and cerebral infarction were assessed. The cell viability was markedly improved following treatment with PSP and the activity of LDH and caspase-3 was decreased following PSP administration (P<0.05). The in vivo studies determined that the neurological deficit score and cerebral infarction volume were reduced with the concentration of PSP increasing between 150 and 250 mg/kg. The H&E staining indicated that PSP was able to protect the nerve cells against the cerebral IR injury. In addition, PSP upregulated the decreased silent information regulator protein 1, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor coactivator-1 and apoptosis regulator B-cell lymphoma 2 expression induced by cerebral IR injury. The protein expression level of caspase-3 and apoptosis regulator apoptosis regulator Bcl-2-like protein 4 was downregulated following PSP administration. These results suggested that PSP may improve nerve cell viability, enhance the neuroprotective role in cerebral IR injury and provide a novel approach for the treatment of cerebral IR injury.

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