4.5 Article

Protective peptides that are orally active and mechanistically nonchiral

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.103.063891

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous reports identified two peptides that mimic the action of neuroprotective proteins derived from astrocytes. These peptides, NAPVSIPQ and SALLRSIPA, prevent neuronal cell death produced by electrical blockade, N-methyl-D-aspartate, and beta-amyloid of NAPVSIPQ and SALLRSIPA were synthesized and compared respectively to the corresponding all L-amino acid peptides. In rat cerebral cortical test cultures cotreated with 1 muM tetrodotoxin, the D-amino acid peptides produced similar potency and efficacy for neuroprotection as that observed for their respective L-amino acid peptides. Since all these peptides tested individually exhibited attenuation of efficacy at concentrations of >10 pM, combinations of these peptides were tested for possible synergies. Equimolar D-NAPVSIPQ and D-SALLRSIPA combination treatment produced potent neuroprotection (EC50, 0.03 fM) that did not attenuate with increasing concentrations. Similarly, the combination Of L-NAPVSIPQ and D-SALLRSIPA also had high potency (EC50, 0.07 fM) without attenuation of efficacy. Combined administration of peptides was tested in a model of fetal alcohol syndrome and in a model of learning impairment: apolipoprotein E knockout mice. Intraperitoneal administration Of D-NAPVSIPQ Plus D-SALLRSIPA to pregnant mice (embryonic day 8) attenuated fetal demise after treatment with an acute high dose of alcohol. Furthermore, oral administration Of D-NAPVSIPQ Plus D-SALLRSIPA significantly increased fetal survival after maternal alcohol treatment. Apolipoprotein E knockout mice injected with D-NAPVSIPQ Plus D-SALLRSIPA showed improved performance in the Morris water maze. These studies suggest therapeutic potential for the combined administration of neuroprotective peptides that can act through a mechanism independent of chiral recognition.

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