4.4 Article

Blood-Brain Barrier Rescue by Roflumilast After Transient Global Cerebral Ischemia in Rats

期刊

NEUROTOXICITY RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 311-323

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12640-023-00639-2

关键词

Phosphodiesterase inhibitor; Roflumilast; Transient global cerebral ischemia; The blood-brain barrier

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors (PDE4-I), such as roflumilast, have been shown to have neuroprotective effects by increasing cAMP levels. In this study, it was investigated whether roflumilast can protect the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in the hippocampus after transient global cerebral ischemia (TGCI) in rats. The results showed that roflumilast attenuated BBB disruption and restored endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) levels in the CA1 hippocampal area. It also increased the levels of B2 cell lymphoma (BcL-2) and neuron-glial antigen-2 (NG2) after global ischemia in rats.
Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors (PDE4-I), which selectively increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) levels, have shown neuroprotective effects after several neurological injuries inducing blood-brain barrier (BBB) damage including local/focal cerebral ischemia. The present investigated whether roflumilast confers BBB neuroprotection in the hippocampus after transient global cerebral ischemia (TGCI) in rats. TGCI resulted in whole BBB disruption as measured by the increase of Evans blue (EB) and IgG extravasation, neurodegeneration, and downregulation of claudin-5 and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) levels in the CA1 hippocampal subfield of ischemic rats. Roflumilast attenuated BBB disruption and restored the levels of eNOS in the CA1 hippocampal area. Moreover, roflumilast increased the levels of B2 cell lymphoma (BcL-2) and neuron-glial antigen-2 (NG2) in the CA1 subfield after global ischemia in rats. The protective effects of roflumilast against TGCI-induced BBB breakdown might involve preservation of BBB integrity, vascularization and angiogenesis, and myelin repair.

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

4.4
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