4.7 Article

Ischemic preconditioning increases antioxidants in the brain and peripheral organs after cerebral ischemia

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 192, 期 1, 页码 117-124

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.11.012

关键词

biological oxidation potential; brain ischemia; reactive oxygen species; uric acid; ascorbic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose. Low molecular weight antioxidants (LMWA), which reflect tissue reducing power, are among the endogenous mechanisms for neutralizing reactive oxygen species (ROS). Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) was associated with decreased oxidative stress. We examined the effect of focal ischemia on LMWA and on prostaglandin E-2 (PGE(2), a product of arachidonic acid oxidation) in the brain, heart, liver, and lungs of rats subjected to 90 min of ischemia and in IPC rats subjected to similar insult. Methods. Transient right middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) was performed for 90 min and at 0, 5, 30, 60, or 240 min of reperfusion, LMWA and PGE2 were evaluated by cyclic voltametry (CV) and radioimmunoassay, respectively. IPC was induced by 2 min of MCAO, 24 h prior to the major ischemic episode. Results. LMWA decreased at 5 min of reperfusion in the brain, heart, liver, and lung and rose 4 h later only in the brain. PGE2 levels increased three to fivefold in all tissues examined. Surprisingly, in IPC rats a dramatic increase of LMWA occurred at 5 min of reperfusion in the brain and in the peripheral organs. Uric acid, but not ascorbic, is the major LMWA increased. Conclusions. We propose that after ischemia, ROS rapidly consume the antioxidants reserves in the brain and also in peripheral organs, suggesting that the whole body is under oxidative stress. Moreover, part of the neuroprotection afforded by IPC is mediated by the brain's ability to mobilize antioxidants, especially uric acid, that attenuate the massive ROS-mediated oxidative stress. (C) 2004 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

4.7
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