| Literature DB >> 35600074 |
Li Cai1,2, Zeng-Yu Yao1,2, Lu Yang1,2, Xiu-Hong Xu1, Meng Luo1, Miao-Miao Dong1, Guo-Ping Zhou1,2.
Abstract
Cell pyroptosis is one of the main forms of neuronal injury after cerebral ischemia-reperfusion. It is accompanied by an inflammatory reaction and regulated by the caspase gene family. Electroacupuncture (EA) can reduce neuronal injury caused by cerebral ischemia-reperfusion, and we speculated that EA can prevent neuronal pyroptosis after cerebral ischemia-reperfusion by regulating the nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3)/caspase-1 pathway. The cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury model of C57 and caspase-1 gene knockout (Cas-1 ko) mice was established by Longa's method. EA was conducted at acupoints Chize (LU5), Hegu (LI4), Sanyinjiao (SP6), and Zusanli (ST36) for 1.5 h after cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury for 20 min, and observation was carried out after 24 h. Neurological deficit scores evaluated the neurological function, cerebral infarction volume was observed by triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, TUNEL and caspase-1 double-labeled fluorescence staining, and NLRP3 and caspase-1 double-labeled immunofluorescence staining that were used to observe the morphology of neurons in hippocampus, and the protein expression of NLRP3, pro-caspase-1, cleaved caspase-1 p20, pro-interleukin-1β (IL-1β), cleaved IL-1β, and GSDMD was detected by Western blot assay. Results showed that EA could reduce the score of neurological deficit, reduce the volume of cerebral infarction and improve the degree of nerve cell injury, and inhibit NLRP3, pro-caspase-1, cleaved caspase-1 p20, pro-IL-1β, cleaved IL-1β, and GSDMD protein expression. In summary, EA plays a neuroprotective role by reducing the pyroptotic neurons that were caspase 1-mediated and inflammatory response after cerebral ischemia-reperfusion.Entities:
Keywords: NLRP3; caspase-1; cell pyroptosis; cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury; electroacupuncture; nerve regeneration
Year: 2022 PMID: 35600074 PMCID: PMC9120636 DOI: 10.3389/fnmol.2022.822088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Mol Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5099 Impact factor: 5.639
Figure 1Neurological deficit scores. Comparison within the same genotype: *p < 0.05 vs. Sham group; #p < 0.05 vs. I/R group. Comparison within the I/R group: ▴p < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Data are representative of 12 independent experiments (mean ± SD are representative of values from 12 independent experiments).
Figure 2Brain tissue with TTC staining. (A,B) TTC staining results of different treatment groups and quantitative analysis of volume ratio. Comparison within the same genotype: *p < 0.05 vs. Sham group; #p < 0.05 vs. I/R group. Comparison within the I/R group: ▴p < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Comparison within the EA group: Δp < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Data are representative of four independent experiments [(A,B) mean ± SD are representative of values from four independent experiments in (B)].
Figure 3Morphological observation of neuronal injury in hippocampus after I/R injury. (A) Pathological HandE staining of neurons in hippocampus. (B,D) TUNEL (green)/caspase-1 (red) double-labeled staining of neurons in hippocampus and quantitative analysis of double-labeled cells. (C,E) Double immunofluorescent labeling with caspase-1 (green)/NLRP3 (red) and quantitative analysis of colocalization percentage. Comparison within the same genotype: *p < 0.05 vs. Sham group; #p < 0.05 vs. I/R group. Comparison within the I/R group: ▴p < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Comparison within the EA group: Δp < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Data are representative of four independent experiments [(A–E) mean ± SD are representative of values from four independent experiments in (D,E)].
Figure 4Protein expression of pyroptosis-related proteins. (A,B) Western blotting analysis of NLRP3, pro-Casp-1, Casp-1 p20, IL-1β, cleaved IL-1β, and GSDMD in different treatment groups and quantitative analysis of bands. (C) Western blotting analysis of casp-11 in Cas-1 ko mice. Comparison within the same genotype: *p < 0.05 vs. Sham group; #p < 0.05 vs. I/R group. Comparison within the I/R group: ▴p < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Comparison within the EA group: Δp < 0.05 vs. C57 mice. Data are representative of two (C) or four independent experiments [(A,B) mean ± SD are representative of values from four independent experiments in (B)].