4.7 Article

Transient focal ischemia increases endothelial nitric oxide synthase in cerebral blood vessels

期刊

STROKE
卷 33, 期 11, 页码 2704-2710

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000033132.85123.6A

关键词

cerebral ischemia; gene expression; nitric oxide; reperfusion; rats

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-50587, HL-46558, HL-30260] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Production of NO by endothelial NO synthase (eNOS) plays a protective role in cerebral ischemia. We studied the effects of transient focal ischemia on eNOS expression. Methods-Wistar rats (n=72) underwent reversible filament occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery for 75 minutes. After 6, 24, 72, or 168 hours of reperfusion, brains were removed and coronal sections cut for eNOS immunohistochemistry, eNOS-alkaline phosphatase costaining, and hematoxylin-eosin staining. Samples for eNOS immunoblots were taken from corresponding striatum and overlying parietal cortex bilaterally. Results-eNOS protein occurred in virtually all blood vessels and was consistently increased in microvessels in the ischemic striatum after 24 to 168 hours of reperfusion but not at 6 hours. eNOS upregulation in the parietal cortex was only present in animals with evidence of cortical infarcts documented on adjacent HE-stained sections. Costaining of endogenous alkaline phosphatase and eNOS demonstrated eNOS expression in all segments of cerebral microvessels. Quantitative analysis of eNOS immunostaining and immunoblots showed no attenuated increase in animals that were treated with indomethacin (5 mg/kg IP), NS398 (20 mg/kg IP), or L-arginine-methyl ester (10 mg/kg IP). In contrast to eNOS, levels of brain NOS did not increase after ischemia. Conclusion-eNOS protein is upregulated in pre- and postcapillary microvessels and upregulation appears slower after transient compared with permanent ischemia. Cyclooxygenase and NOS products do not play a major role in postischemic eNOS induction.

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