4.5 Review

Perinatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy and Neuroprotective Peptide Therapies: A Case for Cationic Arginine-Rich Peptides (CARPs)

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci8080147

关键词

hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy; hypoxia-ischemia; birth asphyxia; neuroprotection; cationic arginine-rich peptides; animal models

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in neonates, with survivors suffering significant neurological sequelae including cerebral palsy, epilepsy, intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders. While hypothermia is used clinically to reduce neurological injury following HIE, it is only used for term infants (>36 weeks gestation) in tertiary hospitals and improves outcomes in only 30% of patients. For these reasons, a more effective and easily administrable pharmacological therapeutic agent, that can be used in combination with hypothermia or alone when hypothermia cannot be applied, is urgently needed to treat pre-term (<= 36 weeks gestation) and term infants suffering HIE. Several recent studies have demonstrated that cationic arginine-rich peptides (CARPs), which include many cell-penetrating peptides [CPPs; e.g., transactivator of transcription (TAT) and poly-arginine-9 (R9; 9-mer of arginine)], possess intrinsic neuroprotective properties. For example, we have demonstrated that poly-arginine-18 (R18; 18-mer of arginine) and its D-enantiomer (R18D) are neuroprotective in vitro following neuronal excitotoxicity, and in vivo following perinatal hypoxia-ischemia (HI). In this paper, we review studies that have used CARPs and other peptides, including putative neuroprotective peptides fused to TAT, in animal models of perinatal HIE. We critically evaluate the evidence that supports our hypothesis that CARP neuroprotection is mediated by peptide arginine content and positive charge and that CARPs represent a novel potential therapeutic for HIE.

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

4.5
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