4.5 Article

Nicotinamide attenuates focal ischemic brain injury in rats:: With special reference to changes in nicotinamide and NAD+ levels in ischemic core and penumbra

期刊

NEUROCHEMICAL RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 1227-1234

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024236614015

关键词

cerebral ischemia; stroke; cerebral blood flow; poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase; apoptosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the neuroprotective action of nicotinamide in focal ischemia. Male spontaneously hypertensive rats (5 - 7 months old) were subjected to photothrombotic occlusion of the right distal middle cerebral artery (MCA). Either nicotinamide (125 or 250 mg/kg) or vehicle was injected IV before MCA occlusion. Changes in the cerebral blood flow (CBF) were monitored using laser-Doppler flowmetry, and infarct volumes were determined with TTC staining 3 days after MCA occlusion. In another set of experiments, the brain nicotinamide and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD(+)) levels were analyzed by HPLC using the frozen samples dissected from the regions corresponding to the ischemic core and penumbra. In the 250-mg/kg nicotinamide group, the ischemic CBF was significantly increased compared to that the untreated group, and the infarct volumes were substantially attenuated (-36%). On the other hand, the ischemic CBF in the 125 mg/kg nicotinamide group was not significantly different from the untreated CBF, however, the infarct volumes were substantially attenuated (-38%). Cerebral ischemia per se did not affect the concentrations of nicotinamide and NAD(+) both in the penumbra and ischemic core. In the nicotinamide groups, the brain nicotinamide levels increased significantly in all areas examined, and brain NAD(+) levels increased in the penumbra but not in the ischemic core. Increased brain levels of nicotinamide are considered to be primarily important for neuroprotection against ischemia, and the protective action may be partly mediated through the increased NAD(+) in the penumbra.

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