3.8 Article

Effect of erythropoietin on brain tissue after experimental head trauma in rats

期刊

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 547-555

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.01.030

关键词

brain injury; methylprednisolone; erythropoietin; apoptosis; bcl-2; survivin; electron microscopy; lipid peroxidation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of EPO on LPO, on ultrastructural findings, and on antiapoptotic bcl-2 and survivin gene expressions after TBI. The authors also compared the activity of EPO with that of MPSS. Methods: Wistar rats were divided into 6 groups: sham-operated, control, moderate TBI-alone (300 g/cm), TBI + EPO-treated (1000 IU/kg), TBI + MPSS-treated (30 mg/kg), and TBI + vehicle-treated (0.4 mL albumin solution) groups. Results: Compared with the levels in control and sham-operated animals, LPO was significantly elevated in rats in the trauma-alone group. The administration of EPO and MPSS significantly decreased the LPO levels (P < .05). Trauma also increases the antiapoptotic bcl-2 gene expression significantly at 24 hours postinjury (P < .05), but it has no effect on survivin expression. The EPO and MPSS treatments caused significant elevation in both gene expressions (P < .05). It is also showed that MPSS has more protective effect than EPO on brain ultrastructure, especially on the structure of small- (P < .05) and medium-sized myelinated axons, after TBI. Conclusions: EPO has protective effects after moderate TBI, and this effect seems better than MPSS on antiapoptotic gene expression and LPO. The protection of cerebral subcellular organelles after traumatic injury is more prominent in MPSS-treated animals than EPO-treated animals quantitatively. This experimental study indicates that the benefits of EPO in the management of TBI have promising results and prompts further studies on the difference between EPO and MPSS in histopathological findings at the subcellular level. (C) 2007 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

3.8
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