| Literature DB >> 31969800 |
Lucas D Udovin1, Tamara Kobiec1,2, María I Herrera1,2, Nicolás Toro-Urrego1, Carlos F Kusnier1, Rodolfo A Kölliker-Frers1, Ana B Ramos-Hryb1, Juan P Luaces1, Matilde Otero-Losada1, Francisco Capani1,3.
Abstract
Perinatal asphyxia (PA) is a clinical condition brought by a birth temporary oxygen deprivation associated with long-term damage in the corpus striatum, one of the most compromised brain areas. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a neuromodulator well known for its protective effects in brain injury models, including PA, albeit not deeply studied regarding its particular effects in the corpus striatum following PA. Using Bjelke et al. (1991) PA model, full-term pregnant rats were decapitated, and uterus horns were placed in a water bath at 37°C for 19 min. One hour later, the pups were injected with PEA 10 mg/kg s.c., and placed with surrogate mothers. After 30 days, the animals were perfused, and coronal striatal sections were collected to analyze protein-level expression by Western blot and the reactive area by immunohistochemistry for neuron markers: phosphorylated neurofilament-heavy/medium-chain (pNF-H/M) and microtubule-associated protein-2 (MAP-2), and the astrocyte marker, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). Results indicated that PA produced neuronal damage and morphological changes. Asphyctic rats showed a decrease in pNF-H/M and MAP-2 reactive areas, GFAP+ cells number, and MAP-2 as well as pNF-H/M protein expression in the striatum. Treatment with PEA largely restored the number of GFAP+ cells. Most important, it ameliorated the decrease in pNF-H/M and MAP-2 reactive areas in asphyctic rats. Noticeably, PEA treatment reversed the decrease in MAP-2 protein expression and largely prevented PA-induced decrease in pNF-H/M protein expression. PA did not affect the GFAP protein level. Treatment with PEA attenuated striatal damage induced by PA, suggesting its therapeutic potential for the prevention of neurodevelopmental disorders.Entities:
Keywords: neurofilaments; neuroprotection; palmitoylethanolamide; perinatal asphyxia; striatum
Year: 2020 PMID: 31969800 PMCID: PMC6960201 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.01345
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Phosphorylated neurofilament-heavy/medium-chain (pNF-H/M) immunostaining and protein level in the rat striatum in the experimental groups. (A) Representative images of dorsal striatum immunostained for pNF-H/M. The white arrow indicates the positive immunostaining area for pNF-H/M; AF indicates the axonal fascicles. Strictly dorsal striatum was used for immunohistochemistry due to its high vulnerability to hypoxia. Scale bar: 50 μm. (B) Percentage of pNF-H/M reactive area. (C) Optical density of bands showing pNF-H/M protein expression level. Bars and error bars represent the mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001, PA–VHI vs. CTL–VHI, ••••p < 0.0001, and •p < 0.05, PA–VHI vs. PA+PEA; ####p < 0.0001 and ##p < 0.005, PA+PEA vs. CTL–VHI. PEA did not affect either pNF-H/M immunostaining or protein expression as there was no difference between CTL+PEA and CTL–VHI groups. CTL–VHI, control rats treated with vehicle; PA–VHI, rats subjected to PA and treated with vehicle; PA+PEA, rats subjected to PA and PEA treatment; CTL+PEA, control rats treated with PEA; PEA, palmitoylethanolamide.
FIGURE 2Microtubule-associated protein (MAP-2) immunostaining and protein level in the rat striatum in the experimental groups. (A) Representative images of the dorsal striatum immunostained for MAP-2. The figure shows MAP-2 immunostaining in the dorsal striatum; AF indicates the axonal fascicles. Scale bar: 50 μm. The main-image marked rectangular areas are shown magnified in the corresponding upper right margin. The black arrow indicates the positive immunostaining area for MAP-2. Scale bar: 25 μm. (B) Percentage of MAP-2 reactive area. (C) Optical density of bands showing for MAP-2 protein expression level. Bars and error bars represent the mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001, PA–VHI vs. CTL–VHI; ••••p < 0.0001 and •••p < 0.001, PA–VHI vs. PA+PEA. PEA had no effect on either MAP-2 immunostaining or protein expression level as there was no difference between CTL+PEA and CTL–VHI groups. No difference was found in MAP-2 immunostaining or protein expression level between PA+PEA and CTL–VHI groups. CTL–VHI, control rats treated with vehicle; PA–VHI, rats subjected to PA and treated with vehicle; PA+PEA, rats subjected to PA and PEA treatment; CTL+PEA, control rats treated with PEA.
FIGURE 3GFAP+ cells and protein expression level in the rat striatum. (A) Representative images of the dorsal striatum immunostained for glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). The white arrow shows an astrocyte immunostained for GFAP. Scale bar: 50 μm. (B) Number of the GFAP+ cells measured per experimental group. (C) Optical density of the bands for GFAP protein expression level. Bars and error bars represent mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001, PA–VHI vs. CTL–VHI, ••••p < 0.0001, PA–VHI vs. PA+PEA and ##p < 0.005, PA+PEA vs. CTL–VHI. PEA had no effect on GFAP+ immunostaining as there was no difference between CTL+PEA and CTL–VHI groups. Neither PA nor PEA affected GFAP protein level. CTL, control rats treated with vehicle; PA–VHI, rats subjected to PA and treated with vehicle; PA+PEA, rats subjected to PA and PEA treatment; CTL+PEA, control rats treated with PEA.