4.7 Article

Electronegative very-low-density lipoprotein induces brain inflammation and cognitive dysfunction in mice

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85502-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kaohsiung Medical University [KMU-TP104D05]
  2. MOST from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology [105-2628-B-037-003-MY3, 107-2321-B-037-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that long-term exposure to electronegative VLDL from patients with metabolic syndrome can lead to increased levels of inflammatory factors and amyloid beta in the brain, affecting cognitive function.
Epidemiologic studies have indicated that dyslipidemia may facilitate the progression of cognitive dysfunction. We previously showed that patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) had significantly higher plasma levels of electronegative very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) than did healthy controls. However, the effects of electronegative-VLDL on the brain and cognitive function remain unclear. In this study, VLDL isolated from healthy volunteers (nVLDL) or patients with MetS (metVLDL) was administered to mice by means of tail vein injection. Cognitive function was assessed by using the Y maze test, and plasma and brain tissues were analyzed. We found that mice injected with metVLDL but not nVLDL exhibited significant hippocampus CA3 neuronal cell loss and cognitive dysfunction. In mice injected with nVLDL, we observed mild glial cell activation in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and hippocampus CA3. However, in mice injected with metVLDL, plasma and brain TNF-alpha and A beta -42 levels and glial cell activation in the mPFC and whole hippocampus were higher than those in control mice. In conclusion, long-term exposure to metVLDL induced levels of TNF-alpha, A beta -42, and glial cells in the brain, contributing to the progression of cognitive dysfunction. Our findings suggest that electronegative-VLDL levels may represent a new therapeutic target for cognitive dysfunction.

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

4.7
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