4.5 Article

Monitoring of reactive oxygen species production after traumatic brain injury in rats with microdialysis and the 4-hydroxybenzoic acid trapping method

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 1217-1227

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/089771501317095250

关键词

free radicals; 2-hydroxybenzoic acid (salicylate : 2-HBA); 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HBA); microdialysis; reactive oxygen species; traumatic brain injury (TBI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The detection of reactive oxygen species (ROS) after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is based on indirect methods due to the high reactivity and short half-life of ROS in biological tissue. The commonly used salicylate trapping method has several disadvantages making it unsuitable for human use. We have evaluated 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HBA) together with microdialysis (MD) in the rat as an alternative method. 4-HBA forms one stable adduct, 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (3,4-DHBA), when reacting with ROS and has not previously been used together with MD after TBI. Twenty-seven rats were used for the assessment of 3,4-DHBA production as an indicator of ROS formation in a controlled contusion injury model using intracerebral MD with 3 mM 4-HBA in the perfusate. For comparison, salicylate trapping was used in eight rats. TBI caused a 250 % increase of 3,4-DHBA that peaked at 30 min after injury in severely injured rats and remained significantly elevated as compared to baseline for 90 min after trauma. The mild injury level caused a 100% increase in 3,4-DHBA formation at 30 min after the injury. When the MD probe was placed in the perimeter of the injury site, no significant increase in ROS formation occurred. Salicylate trapping showed a similar increase in adduct formation after severe injury. In addition, high cortical concentrations of 4-HBA and salicylate were found. It is concluded that microdialysis with 4-HBA as a trapping agent appears to be a useful method for ROS detection in the rat with a potential clinical utility.

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