4.2 Article

Quercetin Administration After Spinal Cord Trauma Changes S-100β Levels

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 223-228

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0317167100009963

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: It has been shown previously that S-100 beta levels in serum correspond with the severity of central nervous system (CNS) trauma. It also has been suggested that S-100 beta in CNS tissue is involved in neuroprotection and neuroregeneration. We have previously shown that administration of quercetin results in improved motor function in an animal model of spinal cord trauma. Methods: Mid-thoracic spinal cord compression injury was produced in adult male Wistar rats. Serum and tissue samples were acquired from quercetin-treated animals (25 mu mol/kg) and saline controls at 6, 12 and 24 hours after the trauma. S-100 beta levels were measured using a luminometric assay in the damaged tissue and in the serum of the animals. Results: The increase in serum S-100 beta levels seen in saline controls after spinal cord trauma was ameliorated in the quercetin-treated animals at all time points, although the difference to saline controls became statistically significant only at 24 hrs after the trauma. Compared to tissue S-100 beta levels in healthy animals, values were significantly decreased in saline controls at all three time points, while they were decreased at 6 hrs and increased at both 12 and 24 hrs in quercetin-treated animals. At all three time points tissue S-100 beta levels were significantly higher in quercetin-treated animals than in saline controls. Conclusions: Administration of quercetin results in modification of S-100 beta levels in the setting of experimental spinal cord trauma. The kinetic patterns of the S-100 beta fluctuations in serum and tissue suggest that post-traumatic administration of quercetin decreases the extent a CNS injury.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available