4.7 Article

PD-L1 (Programmed Death Ligand 1) Protects Against Experimental Intracerebral Hemorrhage-Induced Brain Injury

期刊

STROKE
卷 48, 期 8, 页码 2255-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.016705

关键词

cerebral hemorrhage; hematoma; inflammation; PD-L1; stroke

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81322018, 81273287, 81100887]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in the University of China [NCET 111067]
  3. Key Project of Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin Province [12JCZDJC24200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a neurologically destructive stroke, for which no valid treatment is available. This preclinical study examined the therapeutic effect of PD-L1 (programmed death ligand 1), a B7 family member and a ligand for both PD-1 (programmed death 1) and B7-1 (CD80), in a murine ICH model. Methods-ICH was induced by injecting autologous blood into 252 male C57BL/ 6 and Rag1(-/-) mice. One hour later, ICH mice were randomly assigned to receive an intraperitoneal injection of vehicle, PD-L1, or anti-PD-L1 antibody. Neurological function was assessed along with brain edema, brain infiltration of immune cells, blood-brain barrier integrity, neuron death, and mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway products. Results-PD-L1 significantly attenuated neurological deficits, reduced brain edema, and decreased hemorrhage volume in ICH mice. PD-L1 specifically downsized the number of brain-infiltrating CD4(+) T cells and the percentages of Th1 and Th17 cells but increased the percentages of Th2 and regulatory T cells. In the PD-L1-treated group, we observed an amelioration of the inflammatory milieu, decreased cell death, and enhanced blood-brain barrier integrity. PD-L1 also inhibited the mTOR pathway. The administration of anti-PD-L1 antibody produced the opposite effects to those of PDL1 in ICH mice. Conclusions-PD-L1 provided protection from the damaging consequences of ICH.

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