4.7 Article

Intracerebral hemorrhage-induced brain injury is aggravated in senescence-accelerated prone mice

期刊

STROKE
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 216-222

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000195151.46926.7b

关键词

aging; cerebral hemorrhage; mice; microglia; monocytes; oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose - In cerebral stroke, the overall mortality rate of older individuals is higher than that of younger individuals. We therefore investigated aging-related changes in brain tissue damage and immune response in response to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in mice. Methods - ICH was induced by microinjecting autologous whole blood (5 mu L) into the striatum of 4- or 14-month-old senescence-accelerated prone (SAMP8) mice or senescence-accelerated resistant (SAMR1) mice. Results - In all groups, neurological deficits occurred within 6 hours and gradually improved after the first day, but improvement was most delayed in 14-month-old SAMP8 mice. Isolectin B4-positive and amoeboid microglia/macrophages were abundantly distributed around and inside the hemorrhagic lesions in 14-month-old SAMP8 mice. In contrast, myeloperoxidase-immunoreactive neutrophils and reactive astrocytes with intensified glial fibrillary acidic protein - stained processes and swollen cytoplasm did not differ in number or distribution between SAMP8 and SAMR1 mice. Regardless of their age, the immunoreactivity of Mn-SOD, a major antioxidant enzyme in mitochondria, was much weaker in SAMP8 than in SAMR1 mice. The expression of inducible nitric oxide, however, was higher in old SAMP8 mice than in the other experimental groups. Conclusions - These results suggest that activated microglia/monocytes may aggravate intracerebral hemorrhagic damage in old SAMP8 mice. Further studies on the exact role of activated microglia/monocytes and the altered activities of antioxidant enzymes in old SAMP8 mice may provide useful information for ICH-induced brain injury in relation with aging.

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