4.5 Article

Expression of aquaporins 1 and 4 in the brain of spontaneously hypertensive rats

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1325, 期 -, 页码 155-163

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.02.023

关键词

Hypertension; Blood brain barrier; Aquaporin; Neurodegeneration; Spontaneously hypertensive rats

资金

  1. Italian Ministero Istruzione Universita e Ricerca Scientifica
  2. MIUR-COFIN [2006060985_003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aquaporins (AQP) 1 and 4 are water channel proteins localized respectively at the level of the blood-cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) and blood brain (BBB) barriers. These barriers represent the sites of exchange between blood and nervous tissue and between blood, choroid plexus and CSF in brain ventricles respectively. Damage of these barriers may alter transfer of substances between blood and nervous tissue. In spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) chronic hypertension may induce BBB dysfunction and pronounced defects in the integrity of the blood-CSF barrier. AQP1 is expressed in the apical membrane of choroid plexus epithelium. AQP4 is expressed by astrocyte foot processes near blood vessels. The present study has assessed the expression of AQP1 and AQP4 in the brain of SHR in pre-hypertensive (2 months of age), developing hypertension (4 months of age) and established hypertension (6 months of age) stages. Age-matched Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats were used as normotensive reference group. AQP1 expression is increased in choroid plexus epithelium of 6-month-old SHR. An increased expression of AQP4 was found in frontal cortex, striatum, and hippocampus of 4- and 6-month-old SHR compared to younger cohorts and age-matched WKY rats. These findings suggest that the increase in AQP expression may alter fluid exchange in BBB and/or in blood-CSF barrier. This situation in case of an acute or excessively elevated rise of blood pressure can promote BBB changes causing the brain damage occurring in this animal model of hypertension. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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