4.4 Article

Valproic acid and ASK1 deficiency ameliorate optic neuritis and neurodegeneration in an animal model of multiple sclerosis

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 639, 期 -, 页码 82-87

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.12.057

关键词

Valproic acid; ASK1; Optic neuritis; EAE; Neuroprotection

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP26861479, JP16K07076, 16K20341, JP16K11308, JP16K08635, JP15H04999]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K20341, 17K07123, 16K07076, 15H04999, 16K11308] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optic neuritis, which is an acute inflammatory demyelinating syndrome of the central nervous system, is one of the major complications in multiple sclerosis (MS). Herein, we investigated the therapeutic potential of valproic acid (VPA) on optic neuritis in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), a mouse model of MS. EAE was induced in C57BL/6 mice by immunization with MOG(35-55) and VPA (300 mg/kg) was administered via intraperitoneal injection once daily from day 3 postimmunization until the end of the experimental period (day 28). VPA treatment suppressed neuroinflammation and decreased the clinical score of EAE at an early phase (from day 12-14 after immunization). We also examined the effects of apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK1), an evolutionarily conserved signaling intermediate for innate immunity, in EAE mice. ASK1 deficiency strongly suppressed microglial activation and decreased the clinical score of EAE at a late phase (day 25, 27 and 28 after immunization). When VPA was administered to ASK1-deficient EAE mice, the clinical score was suppressed in both early and late phases (from day 12-28 after immunization) and showed synergistic effects on protection of retinal neurons. Our findings raise intriguing possibilities that the widely prescribed drug VPA and ASK1 inhibition may be useful for neuroinflammatory disorders including optic neuritis and MS. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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