4.7 Article

Improvement in spatial memory dysfunction by telmisartan through reduction of brain angiotensin II and oxidative stress in experimental uremic mice

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 113, 期 1-2, 页码 55-59

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2014.07.032

关键词

Brain angiotensin II; Chronic kidney disease; Cognitive impairment; Oxidative stress; Telmisartan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: We previously reported that chronic uremia induces spatial working memory dysfunction in mice, and that it is attributed to cerebral oxidative stress. The source of oxidative stress was considered to be uremic toxins, but this remains unclear. In the present study, we examined whether the brain renin-angiotensin system was activated in the CKD mouse model, and whether it contributed to cognitive impairment. Main methods: CKD was induced in 8-week-old male mice by 5/6 nephrectomy. Mice were divided into four groups: control mice administered tap water (Cont-V), control mice treated with 0.5 mg/kg/day telmisartan, an angiotensin II (All) receptor blocker, for 8 weeks (Cont-T), CKD mice administered tap water (CKD-V), and CKD mice treated with 0.5 mg/kg/day telmisartan for 8 weeks (CKD-T). After the treatment period, a radial arm water maze (RAWM) test was performed, and angiotensin II (All) concentrations and markers of oxidative stress were measured in the brains of mice. Key findings: Errors in the RAWM test were more frequent in the CKD-V group than in the Cont-V group. In addition, errors in the CKD-T group were comparable to control mice. Tissue brain All concentrations were greater in the CKD-V group compared with the other groups. Oxidative DNA damage and lipid peroxidation in the brain were also greater in the CKD-V group compared with the other groups. Significance: Our results suggest that brain All levels were exaggerated in CKD mice, and that this contributes to cognitive impairment through oxidative stress. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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