4.2 Article

Different methods for administering 17β-estradiol to ovariectomized rats result in opposite effects on ischemic brain damage

期刊

BMC NEUROSCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-11-39

关键词

-

资金

  1. County Council of Ostergotland, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Numerous stroke studies have controversially shown estrogens to be either neuroprotective or neurodamaging. The discordant results observed in rat brain ischemia models may be a consequence of discrepancies in estrogen administration modes resulting in plasma concentration profiles far from those intended. To test this hypothesis we reproduced in detail and extended an earlier study from our lab using a different mode of 17 beta-estradiol administration; home-made silastic capsules instead of commercial slow-release 17 beta-estradiol pellets. Four groups of female rats (n = 12) were ovariectomized and administered 17 beta-estradiol or placebo via silastic capsules. All animals underwent MCAo fourteen days after ovariectomy and were sacrificed three days later. Results: In contrast to our earlier results using the commercial pellets, the group receiving 17 beta-estradiol during the entire experiment had significantly smaller lesions than the group receiving placebo (mean +/- SEM: 3.85 +/- 0.70% versus 7.15 +/- 0.27% of total slice area, respectively; p = 0.015). No significant neuroprotection was found when the 17 beta-estradiol was administered only during the two weeks before or the three days immediately after MCAo. Conclusions: The results indicate that different estrogen treatment regimens result in diametrically different effects on cerebral ischemia. Thus the effects of estrogens on ischemic damage seem to be concentration-related, with a biphasic, or even more complex, dose-response relation. These findings have implications for the design of animal experiments and also have a bearing on the estrogen doses used for peri-menopausal hormone replacement therapy.

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

4.2
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