Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We examined the efficacy of R18 in a transient MCAO model and compared its effectiveness to the well-characterized neuroprotective NA-1 peptide. R18 and NA-1 peptides were administered intravenously (30, 100, 300, 1000nmol/kg), 60min after the onset of 90min of MCAO. Infarct volume, cerebral swelling and functional outcomes (neurological score, adhesive tape and rota-rod) were measured 24h after MCAO. R18 reduced total infarct volume by 35.1% (p=0.008), 24.8% (p=0.059), 12.2% and 9.6% for the respective 1000 to 30nmol/kg doses, while the corresponding doses of NA-1 reduced lesion volume by 26.1% (p=0.047), 16.6%, 16.5% and 7%, respectively. R18 also reduced hemisphere swelling by between 46.1% (1000 and 300nmol/kg; p=0.009) and 24.4% (100nmol/kg; p=0.066), while NA-1 reduced swelling by 25.7% (1000nmol/kg; p=0.054). In addition, several R18 and NA-1 treatment groups displayed a significant improvement in at least one parameter of the adhesive tape test. These results confirm the neuroprotective properties of R18, and suggest that the peptide is a more effective neuroprotective agent than NA-1. This provides strong justification for the continuing development of R18 as a neuroprotective treatment for stroke.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milani et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: