4.5 Article

Acute treatment with red wine polyphenols protects from ischemia-induced excitotoxicity, energy failure and oxidative stress in rats

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1239, 期 -, 页码 226-234

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.073

关键词

Stroke; Red wine polyphenols; Neuroprotection; Excitotoxicity; Energy metabolism; Free radical scavenger; Brain lesion; Animal model

资金

  1. Societe Francaise de Distilleries
  2. SEPPIC
  3. Foundation Leducq
  4. ONIVINS
  5. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Basel
  6. ELTEM program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red wine polyphenolic compounds (RWPC) possess numerous neuroprotective activities that may be beneficial for treating cerebral ischemia. To investigate the in vivo effects of an acute treatment with RWPC during stroke, male Wistar rats were subjected to transient ischemia for 90 min and immediately treated with RWPC. The extracellular concentrations of excitatory amino acids, free radical scavengers and energy metabolites during occlusion and reperfusion were monitored using microdialysis. The brain lesions were measured 24 h after reperfusion using immunohistological staining. We found that acute treatment with RWPC significantly reduced the burst of amino acids glutamate, aspartate and taurine in response to ischemia and increased the levels of free radical scavengers ascorbic and uric acids during occlusion or at early reperfusion, respectively. The concentration of glucose was improved during occlusion whereas the level of lactate strongly decreased during reperfusion in RWPC treated animals, suggesting an increased use of this substrate by surviving neurons. RWPC also significantly improved blood flow during reperfusion and brain tissue preservation as observed 24 h after MCAO in treated animals. These findings strongly suggest that RWPC are agents able to fight against the excitotoxic, oxidative pathways and metabolic dysfunction induced by cerebral ischemia. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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