4.6 Article

Inducible nitric oxide synthase contributes to gender differences in ischemic brain injury

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600194

关键词

aminoguanidine; ICAM-1; iNOS-null mice; NADPH oxidase; real-time PCR; stroke

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS35806, NS34179] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estrogens have antiinflammatory actions and protect the brain from ischemic injury. Cerebral ischemia is accompanied by an inflammatory reaction that contributes to the tissue damage, an effect mediated in part by toxic amounts of nitric oxide (NO) produced by the inducible isoform of NO synthase (iNOS). Therefore, estrogens may protect the female brain by modulating postischemic iNOS expression. To test this hypothesis, we studied whether iNOS plays a role in the mechanisms of the reduced susceptibility to ischemic injury observed in female mice. The middle cerebral artery was occluded for 20 mins using an intraluminal filament in C57BI/6 mice, and infarct volume was assessed 3 days later in cresyl violet-stained sections. Infarcts were 53% smaller in female mice than in males (P < 0.05), a reduction abolished by ovariectomy (OVX) and reinstated by estrogen replacement. In normal female mice, postischemic iNOS mRNA was lower than in males ( P < 0.05). Ovariectomy increased iNOS mRNA after ischemia and estrogen replacement blocked this effect. Furthermore, the iNOS inhibitor aminoguanidine reduced infarct volume in male, but not in female, mice. Similarly, male iNOS-null mice had smaller infarcts than wild-type mice, but female iNOS nulls were not protected. Ovariectomy and OVX with estrogen replacement did not affect infarct volume in iNOS-null female mice. The findings suggest that the neuroprotection conferred by estrogens is, in part, related to attenuation of iNOS expression. Such attenuation could result from the potent antiinflammatory effects of estrogens that downregulate iNOS expression via transcriptional or posttranscriptional mechanisms.

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