4.6 Article

Resatorvid protects against hypoxic-ischemic brain damage in neonatal rats

期刊

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 1316-1325

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.272615

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81771625]
  2. Jiangsu Provincial Key Medical Discipline of China [ZDXKA2016013]
  3. Pediatric Clinical Center of Suzhou City of China [Szzx201504]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Secondary brain damage caused by hyperactivation of autophagy and inflammatory responses in neurons plays an important role in hypoxic-ischemic brain damage (HIBD). Although previous studies have implicated Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-kappa B) in the neuroinflammatory response elicited by brain injury, the role and mechanisms of the TLR4-mediated autophagy signaling pathway in neonatal HIBD are still unclear. We hypothesized that this pathway can regulate brain damage by modulating neuron autophagy and neuroinflammation in neonatal rats with HIBD. Hence, we established a neonatal HIBD rat model using the Rice-Vannucci method, and injected 0.75, 1.5, or 3 mg/kg of the TLR4 inhibitor resatorvid (TAK-242) 30 minutes after hypoxic ischemia. Our results indicate that administering TAK-242 to neonatal rats after HIBD could significantly reduce the infarct volume and the extent of cerebral edema, alleviate neuronal damage and neurobehavioral impairment, and decrease the expression levels of TLR4, phospho-NF-kappa B p65, Beclin-1, microtubule-associated protein l light chain 3, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin-1 beta in the hippocampus. Thus, TAK-242 appears to exert a neuroprotective effect after HIBD by inhibiting activation of autophagy and the release of inflammatory cytokines via inhibition of the TLR4/NF-kappa B signaling pathway. This study was approved by the Laboratory Animal Ethics Committee of Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, China (approval No. 20180114-15) on January 14, 2018.

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