4.6 Article

Role of 2-Arachidonoyl-Glycerol and CB1 Receptors in Orexin-A-Mediated Prevention of Oxygen-Glucose Deprivation-Induced Neuronal Injury

期刊

CELLS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9061507

关键词

endocannabinoids; orexin-A; oxygen-glucose deprivation; ischemia; radical oxygen species; neuronal cell death

资金

  1. Fondi Ricerca di Ateneo (FRA) 2016-2017 from University of Urbino
  2. Endocannabinoid Research Group-Institute of Biomolecular Chemistry of the CNR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Orexin-A (OX-A) protects the brain against oxidative stress-mediated ischemic injury. Since the endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) and cannabinoid type-1 (CB1) receptors were previously shown to mediate some of the effects of OX-A exerted through the orexin-1 receptor (OX-1R), we investigated the involvement of 2-AG in OX-A-induced neuroprotection following oxygen and glucose deprivation (OGD) in mouse cortical neurons. OGD-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation and neuronal death were prevented by both OX-A and arachidonyl-2 '-chloroethylamide (ACEA), a synthetic CB1 receptor agonist, in a manner sensitive to OX-1R and CB1 receptor antagonists, SB334867 and AM251. OX-A stimulated 2-AG biosynthesis in cortical neurons. In neurons isolated from monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL, a 2-AG hydrolyzing enzyme) null mice, 10-fold higher 2-AG concentrations were found and OGD failed to induce ROS production and cell death, whereas AM251 restored these noxious effects. OX-A-induced neuroprotection was mediated by the phosphoinositide-3-kinase/Akt (PI3K/Akt) survival pathway since both OX-A and ACEA induced phosphorylation of Akt and prevented OGD-induced cytochrome c release from the mitochondria, in a manner counteracted by SB334867 or AM251. Administration of OX-A reduced infarct volume and elevated brain 2-AG levels in a mouse model of transient ischemia. These results suggest that 2-AG and CB1 receptor mediate OX-A prevention of ischemia-induced neuronal apoptosis.

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