4.6 Article

Hypoxia-activated microglial mediators of neuronal survival are differentially regulated by tetracyclines

期刊

GLIA
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 809-816

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/glia.20335

关键词

cerebral ischemia; microglia; stroke; hypoxia; minocycline; doxycycline; neuronal death; neuroprotection; cell culture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tetracycline derivatives minocycline (MINO) and doxycycline (DOXY) have been shown to be neuroprotective in in vivo and in vitro models of stroke. This neuroprotection is thought to be due to the suppression of microglial activation. However, the specific molecular parameters in microglia of the tetracyclines' effect are not understood. We subjected cultured rat microglial and neuronal cells to in vitro hypoxia and examined the effects of MINO and DOXY pretreatments. Our data showed that MINO and DOXY protect against hypoxia-induced neuronal death by a mechanism dependent on regulation of microglial factors, but likely unrelated to regulation of microglial proliferation/viability. Both MINO and DOXY suppressed the hypoxic activation of ED-1, a marker for microglial activation. Morphological analyses of hypoxic microglia using the microglial marker Iba1 revealed that treatment with MINO and DOXY caused a higher percentage of microglia to remain in a non-activated state. MINO suppressed the hypoxic upregulation of pro-inflammatory agents nitric oxide (NO), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), while DOXY down-regulated only NO and IL-1 beta. In contrast, the hypoxic activation of pro-survival/neuroprotective microglial proteins, such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), were unaffected by tetracycline treatments. Taken together, these results suggest that MINO and DOXY may provide neuroprotection against stroke by selectively downregulating microglial toxic factors while maintaining functional pro-survival factors. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.6
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