Protective effect of C5a receptor inhibition after murine reperfused stroke

Grace H. Kim, J. Mocco, David K. Hahn, Christopher P. Kellner, Ricardo J. Komotar, Andrew F. Ducruet, William J. MacK, E. Sander Connolly

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: The complement cascade has been implicated in cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury. To develop clinically useful therapies that successfully manipulate the complement cascade, the individual roles of its components must be clearly defined. Previous studies have shown that C5 inhibition improves outcome after experimental stroke. In this study, we investigated the role of C5a in stroke injury by inhibiting its activity at the receptor level. METHODS: C5a receptor antagonist or vehicle was administered to mice before temporary middle cerebral artery occlusion. Stroke outcomes were assessed 24 hours later in all mice using both neurological deficit scores and cerebral infarct volumes. RESULTS: Animals treated with C5a receptor antagonist experienced significantly decreased infarct volume and demonstrated an improving trend in neurological function. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that modulation of C5a receptor activity significantly alters the degree of neurological damage after experimental reperfused stroke.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)122-125
Number of pages4
JournalNeurosurgery
Volume63
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2008
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • C5
  • C5a
  • C5a receptor
  • Complement cascade
  • Murine
  • Stroke

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Protective effect of C5a receptor inhibition after murine reperfused stroke'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Kim, G. H., Mocco, J., Hahn, D. K., Kellner, C. P., Komotar, R. J., Ducruet, A. F., MacK, W. J., & Connolly, E. S. (2008). Protective effect of C5a receptor inhibition after murine reperfused stroke. Neurosurgery, 63(1), 122-125. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000335079.70222.8D