4.1 Article

The Neuroprotective Effect of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Hydro-alcoholic Extract on Cerebral Ischemic Tolerance in Experimental Stroke

期刊

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 875-883

出版社

SHAHEED BEHESHTI UNIV, SCH PHARMACY

关键词

Rosemary leaf hydro-alcoholic extract; Cerebral ischemia reperfusion; Infarct volume; Brain edema; Blood-brain barrier permeability; Neuro-protective

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevention of BBB breakdown and the subsequent vasogenic edema are important parts of the medical management of ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ischemic tolerance effect of Rosmarinus officinalis leaf hydro-alcoholic extract (RHE). Five groups of animals were designed: sham (underwent surgery without MCAO) and MCAO groups, the MCAO groups were pretreated orally by gavages with RHE (50, 75, and 100 mg/Kg/day), daily for 30 days. Two hours after the last dose, serum lipid levels were determined and then the rats were subjected to 60 min of middle cerebral artery occlusion followed by 24 h of reperfusion. Subsequently, brain infarct size, brain edema and Evans Blue dye extravasations were measured and neurological deficits were scored. Dietary RHE could significantly reduce cortical and sub-cortical infarct volumes (211.55 +/- 24.88 mm(3) vs. 40.59 +/- 10.04 mm(3) vs. 29.96 +/- 12.19 mm(3) vs. 6.58 +/- 3.2 mm(3)), neurologic deficit scores, cerebral edema (82.34 +/- 0.42% vs. 79.92 +/- 0.49% vs. 79.45 +/- 0.26% vs. 79.30 +/- 0.19%), blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability (7.73 +/- 0.4 mu g/g tissue vs. 4.1 +/- 0.23 mu g/g tissue vs. 3.58 +/- 0.3 mu g/g tissue vs. 3.38 +/- 0.25 mu g/g tissue) in doses of 50, 75 and 100 mg/Kg/day as compared with the control group in the transient model of focal cerebral ischemia. Although pretreatment with RHE plays an important role in the generation of tolerance against cerebral I/R injury, further studies are needed to clarify the mechanism of the ischemic tolerance.

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

4.1
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