4.8 Article

CCR2-dependent monocytes/macrophages exacerbate acute brain injury but promote functional recovery after ischemic stroke in mice

期刊

THERANOSTICS
卷 8, 期 13, 页码 3530-3543

出版社

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/thno.24475

关键词

CCR2; monocytes; functional recovery; ischemic stroke

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81673442]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201307060033]
  3. Qing Lan Project
  4. [R01NS06413606]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Peripheral blood monocytes are recruited into the ischemic brain and transform into macrophages after stroke. Nevertheless, the exact role of CCR2-dependent monocytes/ macrophages in brain injury after stroke remains elusive. Methods: We used CCR2 knockout (KO) mice and the CCR2 pharmacological inhibitor, propagermanium (PG), to address the role of CCR2-dependent monocytes/macrophages in the acute stage and neurological functional recovery after middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusion and reperfusion. Results: CCR2 KO resulted in smaller infarct size and lower mortality than in wild type (WT) mice, when measured 3 days after stroke. However, from 5 to 28 days after stroke, the KO mice had higher mortality and showed no obvious neurological functional recovery. In addition, WT mice treated with PG had similar stroke outcomes compared with CCR2 KO, as measured by T2 weighted MRI. Flow cytometry and real-time PCR analyses suggest that monocyte-derived macrophages (MoDMs) in the stroke brains mainly polarized to pro-inflammatory macrophages at the early stage, but gradually switched to anti-inflammatory macrophages at 7 days after stroke. In addition, adoptive transfer of anti-inflammatory macrophages into CCR2 KO mice at 4 and 6 days after stroke alleviated mortality and promoted neurological recovery. Conclusion: CCR2-dependent monocytes/macrophages are a double-edged sword; they worsen acute brain injury, but are essential for neurological recovery by promoting anti-inflammatory macrophage polarization.

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

4.8
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