4.5 Article

Inhibiting 12/15-lipoxygenase to treat acute stroke in permanent and tPA induced thrombolysis models

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1678, 期 -, 页码 123-128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2017.10.024

关键词

12/15-LOX; FeCl3; tPA; Stroke models; Reperfusion

资金

  1. NIH [R01NS049430, R21NS087165]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

12/15-Lipoxygenase (12/15-LOX) contributes to the brain damage after middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) in the acute phase of stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a 12/15-LOX inhibitor, LOXBlock-1(LB1), in mice using a FeCl3-induced permanent distal MCAO model and FeCl3-induced ischemia/thrombolysis with tPA. In order to induce permanent distal MCAO, 30% FeCl3 was used in C57BL6 mice. LB1 or DMSO treatments were applied intraperitoneally 2 h following MCAO. For FeCl3-induced ischemia/thrombolysis experiments, 10% FeCl3 was preferred so as to obtain reperfusion with tPA in CD1 mice. 4 h following ischemia either LB1 or DMSO and iv tPA was administered. Outcomes were NSS, weight loss, infarct volume, hemorrhage area and reperfusion rate. FeCl3-induced distal MCAO caused an increase in 12/15-LOX signal in the ischemic cortex with an increase in MDA2 and AIF immunoreactivity. LB1 treatment, applied 2 h after ischemia, significantly decreased the infarct volume at 24 h of permanent distal MCAO. Weight loss was also significantly reduced in LB1 treated group. Distal MCAO and tPA application with LB1 or DMSO showed that treatment significantly decreased the infarct volume and the hemorrhage area. The reperfusion rate in the LB1-treated group was surprisingly higher than in the DMSO group and NSS results were significantly improved. These data suggest that LB1 can be used as an adjuvant agent to tPA. This study not only shows the effects of LB1 treatment in distal MCAO but also confirms that FeCl3-induced MCAO model can be a useful tool to screen novel treatment options in stroke. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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