| Literature DB >> 25868435 |
Changhong Ren1,2,3,4, Pengcheng Wang1,5, Brian Wang2, Ning Li1,3,4, Weiguang Li6, Chenggang Zhang6, Kunlin Jin1,2, Xunming Ji1,7,3,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Limb remote ischemic per-conditioning or post-conditioning has been shown to be neuroprotective after cerebral ischemic stroke. However, the effect of combining remote per-conditioning with post-conditioning on ischemic/reperfusion injury as well as the underlying mechanisms are largely unexplored.Entities:
Keywords: Ischemia; neuroglobin; remote conditioning; stroke
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25868435 PMCID: PMC4923706 DOI: 10.3233/RNN-140413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci ISSN: 0922-6028 Impact factor: 2.406
Fig.1Effect of per-conditioning and post-conditioning on infarct volume and area of brain injury. A, Schematic diagram showing limb remote ischemic conditioning, which was induced during ischemia (PerC) and once daily after reperfusion (PostC). B, Representative cresyl violet staining for infarct area measured at 7 days after reperfusion. C, Quantification of average infarct volume shown in B. **P < 0.01. Error bars indicate SD. N = 5 per group. D, Representative cresyl violet staining for brain injury measured at 14 days after reperfusion. E, Quantification of average area of brain injury shown in D. **P < 0.01. Error bars indicate SD. N = 5 per group. Control: ischemic control group. PerC: per-conditioning group. PerC+PostC: per-conditioning combined with post-conditioninggroup.
Fig.2Effect of per-conditioning and post-conditioning on DNA fragmentation and intracellular ROS levels. A, Representative TUNEL staining at 3 days after reperfusion. Scale bar = 100μm. B, Quantification of average TUNEL positive cells number. **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.001. Error bars indicate SD. N = 5 per group. C, Relative ROS levels in each group. *P < 0.05. ****P < 0.001. Error bars indicate SD. N = 4 per group.
Fig.3Effect of per-conditioning and post-conditioning on neurobehavioral function after focal ischemia. A, Neurological deficits were determined using the neurobehavioral scoring system (higher scores correspond to more severe deficits). B, Motor function was determined by the ladder rung walking test (higher scores correspond to more severe deficits). C, Elevated Body Swing Test (higher percentage correspond to more severe deficits). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Error bars indicate SD. N = 10 pergroup.
Fig.4Western blot analysis of Ngb expression. A, Representative Western blot for Ngb protein expression in the ipsilateral peri-infarct region on days 1, 7, and 14 from each group. B, Relative Ngb protein expression level. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Error bars indicate SD. N = 5 per group.
Fig.5Ngb expression pattern determined by immohistochemistry. A, Representative images of Ngb-positive cells in the peri-infarct region of each group at 1 day after reperfusion. B, Representative images of Ngb-positive cells in the peri-infarct region of each group at 7 days after reperfusion. C, Representative images of Ngb positive cells in the peri-infarct region of each group at 14 days after reperfusion. D, left, Representative images of Ngb- and DAPI-positive cells. Right, Double-label immunohistochemistry with antibodies against Ngb and neuron marker NeurN. Scale bar = 100μm. E, Bar graphs depicting the number of Ngb-positive cells. Error bars indicate SD. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. N = 5 per group. Dashed line indicates the distinction between the ischemic core and peri-infarctregion.