4.6 Review

Brain angiogenesis in developmental and pathological processes: neurovascular injury and angiogenic recovery after stroke

期刊

FEBS JOURNAL
卷 276, 期 17, 页码 4644-4652

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2009.07176.x

关键词

angiogenesis; edema; endothelial progenitor cell; hemorrhage; ischemia; matrix metalloproteinase; neurogenesis; neurovascular unit; remodeling; stroke

资金

  1. American Heart Association
  2. Deane Institute
  3. [P01-NS55104]
  4. [P50-NS10828]
  5. [R01-NS37074]
  6. [R01-NS48422]
  7. [R01-NS53560]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pathophysiologic responses in brain after stroke are highly complex. Thus far, a singular focus on saving neurons alone has not revealed any clinically effective neuroprotectants. To address this limitation, the concept of a neurovascular unit was developed. Within this conceptual framework, brain function and dysfunction are manifested at the level of cell-cell signaling between neuronal, glial and vascular elements. For stroke, coordinated responses at the neurovascular interface will mediate acute as well as chronic events in ischemic and hemorrhagic brain tissue. In this minireview, we briefly survey two representative examples of neurovascular responses in stroke. During the early acute phase of neurovascular injury, blood-brain barrier perturbations should predominate with key roles for various matrix proteases. During the delayed phase, brain angiogenesis may provide the critical neurovascular substrates for neuronal remodeling. In this minireview, we propose the hypothesis that the biphasic nature of neurovascular responses represents an endogenous attempt by damaged parenchyma to trigger brain angiogenesis and repair. This phenomenon may allow acute deleterious signals to transition into beneficial effects during stroke recovery. Understanding how neurovascular signals and substrates make the transition from initial injury to angiogenic recovery will be important if we are to find new therapeutic approaches for stroke.

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

4.6
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