4.6 Article

Effects of N-Butylphthalide on the expressions of Nogo/NgR in rat brain tissue after carbon monoxide poisoning

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 953-961

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.etap.2015.02.013

关键词

CO poisoning; N-Butylphthalide; Apoptosis; Nogo; NgR1; MAG

资金

  1. Yantai Science and Technology Project Grants [2014WS013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon monoxide (CO) intoxication is one of the most common types of poisoning worldwide, and may result in neuropathologic sequelae, yet its pathogenesis is not clear and there is no optimal management strategy for patients with CO poisoning. In this study, the rat model of CO poisoning was established in a hyperbaric chamber by CO exposure. Rats were administered orally N-Butylphthalide (NBP) at a dose of 1 ml/100 g. Neuronal apoptosis was assessed by TUNEL stain and flow cytometry. The expressions of neurite outgrowth inhibitor (Nogo), myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) and Nogo receptor-1 (NgR1) were observed in rat brain tissue by immunohistochemistry and double immunofluorescence staining. As we expected, CO poisoning could start the mechanism of apoptosis. The number of apoptotic cells and the early neuronal apoptosis percentage (EAR) were significantly increased at 1 day, 3 day after CO exposure. NBP treatment obviously reduce neuronal apoptosis and the EAR (P<0.05). CO poisoning could induce Nogo, MAG and NgR1 expressions. The increased Nogo, MAG and NgR1 proteins were still observed at 4 week after CO poisoning. NBP could significantly reduce the levels of Nogo and NgR1 proteins. Then we suspected that the expressions of Nogo, MAG and NGR1 proteins might be associated with brain injury and demyelination induced by CO poisoning. NBP might inhibit neuronal apoptosis and the EAR, down-regulate the expressions of Nogo and NgR1 proteins (but not MAG), and play a neuro-protective role in brain damage after acute CO poisoning. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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