4.7 Article

Therapeutic potential of an anti-high mobility group box-1 monoclonal antibody in epilepsy

期刊

BRAIN BEHAVIOR AND IMMUNITY
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 308-319

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2017.02.002

关键词

Epilepsy; Monoclonal antibody; HMGB1

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China - China [91332202, 81221003, 81271624, 81471316]
  2. Program for the Zhejiang Leading Team of S&T Innovation - China [2011R50014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain inflammation is a major factor in epilepsy, and the high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) protein is known to contribute significantly to the generation of seizures. Here, we investigated the therapeutic potential of an anti-HMGB1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) in epilepsy. anti-HMGB1 mAb attenuated both acute seizure models (maximal electroshock seizure, pentylenetetrazole-induced and kindling-induced), and chronic epilepsy model (kainic acid-induced) in a dose-dependent manner. Meanwhile, the anti-HMGB1 mAb also attenuated seizure activities of human brain slices obtained from surgical resection from drug-resistant epilepsy patients. The mAb showed an anti-seizure effect with a long-term manner and appeared to be minimal side effects at even very high dose (no disrupted physical EEG rhythm and no impaired basic physical functions, such as body growth rate and thermoregulation). This anti-seizure effect of mAb results from its inhibition of translocated HMGB1 from nuclei following seizures, and the anti-seizure effect was absent in toll-like receptor 4 knockout (TLR4(-/-)) mice. Interestingly, the anti-HMGB1 mAb also showed a disease-modifying anti-epileptogenetic effect on epileptogenesis after status epileptics, which is indicated by reducing seizure frequency and improving the impaired cognitive function. These results indicate that the anti-HMGB1 mAb should be viewed as a very promising approach for the development of novel therapies to treat refractory epilepsy. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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