4.5 Article

Selective involvement of BH3-only Bcl-2 family members Bim and Bad in neonatal hypoxia-ischemia

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1099, 期 -, 页码 150-159

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.132

关键词

apoptosis; BH3-only; hypoxia-ischemia; neonatal

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [2R01 CA/GM80188-04A1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [1 K12 HD043397-02] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [P30 NS057098, R01 NS041962, P30 NS047466, R01 NS035107, K08 NS043220] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perinatal hypoxic-ischemic injury is a common cause of neurologic disability mediated in part by Bcl-2 family-regulated neuronal apoptosis. The Bcl-2 protein family consists of both pro- (e.g. Bax, Bad, Bid, Bim) and anti-apoptotic (e.g. Bcl-2, Bcl-X-L) proteins that regulate mitochondrial outer membrane integrity, cytochrome c release and caspase activation. Previous studies have implicated Bax as an important mediator of neuronal death in several models of brain injury, including neonatal hypoxia-ischemia (HI). In this study, we assessed the roles of several members of the Pro-apoptotic BH3 domain-only Bcl-2 sub-family in an in vivo mouse model of neonatal HI Seven-day old control and gene-disrupted mice underwent unilateral left carotid ligation followed by 45 min exposure to 8% oxygen and the extent of brain injury was assessed 2 days later. Following HI, mice deficient in Bad or Bim exhibited reduced activated caspase-3 and glial fibrillary acidic protein immunostaining in their brains compared to similarly treated control animals. Measurement of hippocampal area showed decreased parenchymal loss in both Bad- and Bim-deficient mice versus control animals. In contrast, loss of Bid, another BH3-only protein, provided no protection from neonatal HI brain injury. These results indicate that Bad and Bim are selectively involved in neuron death following neonatal HI and may be targets for therapeutic intervention. (c) 2006 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