Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors: “Key” Regulators of Neuroinflammation after Traumatic Brain Injury

Stahel, Philip F.; Smith, Wade R.; Bruchis, Jay; Rabb, Craig H.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/538141

PPAR Research

On this page

Abstract Introduction References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

PPARs in Neuroinflammation

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2008 | Article ID 538141 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/538141

Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors: “Key” Regulators of Neuroinflammation after Traumatic Brain Injury

Philip F. Stahel,¹Wade R. Smith,¹Jay Bruchis,¹and Craig H. Rabb²

Academic Editor: Paul Drew

Received24 Dec 2007

Accepted29 Jan 2008

Published27 Mar 2008

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury is characterized by neuroinflammatory pathological sequelae which contribute to brain edema and delayed neuronal cell death. Until present, no specific pharmacological compound has been found, which attenuates these pathophysiological events and improves the outcome after head injury. Recent experimental studies suggest that targeting peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) may represent a new anti-inflammatory therapeutic concept for traumatic brain injury. PPARs are “key” transcription factors which inhibit NF activity and downstream transcription products, such as proinflammatory and proapoptotic cytokines. The present review outlines our current understanding of PPAR-mediated neuroprotective mechanisms in the injured brain and discusses potential future anti-inflammatory strategies for head-injured patients, with an emphasis on the putative beneficial combination therapy of synthetic cannabinoids (e.g., dexanabinol) with PPAR agonists (e.g., fenofibrate).

1. Introduction

Research efforts in recent years have provided increasing evidence that the intracerebral inflammatory response is in large part responsible for the devastating neuropathological sequelae and poor outcome of traumatic brain injury [1–3]. The extent of brain damage is determined by primary and secondary injury patterns. While the primary injury results from mechanical forces applied to the skull and brain at the time of impact, secondary brain injury occurs as a delayed consequence of trauma [4–7]. Secondary brain injuries are mediated by endogenous pathophysiological processes which lead to an overwhelming neuroinflammation in the injured brain [6, 8–10]. The main risk factors for developing secondary brain injuries are hypoxemia and systemic hypotension which occur frequently in the trauma patient [11, 12]. These conditions contribute to the ischemic brain damage and perpetuate the intracerebral inflammatory reaction through ischemia/reperfusion-mediated mechanisms [13]. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are ligand-activated transcription factors of the nuclear receptor superfamily which have recently been shown to exert anti-inflammatory properties in acute neurological disorders. These include cerebrovascular stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury [14–21]. The present paper provides an overview on the so far known anti-inflammatory properties of PPARs in brain injury and discusses potential pharmacological properties of PPAR agonists as future neuroprotective agents.

2. Biological Functions of PPARs

PPARs are nuclear membrane-associated transcription factors belonging to the nuclear receptor family [22]. Three isotypes with a differential tissue distribution have been described: PPAR (NR1C1), PPAR (NR1C2), and PPAR (NR1C3) [23, 24]. While PPAR has an ubiquitous expression, PPAR and PPAR are mainly expressed in tissues with high fatty acid catabolism, such as adipose tissue, liver, kidney, and skeletal muscle [25]. Mechanistically, PPARs are activated by heterodimerization with the retinoid-X receptor (RXR) into biologically active transcription factors. PPAR-RXR heterodimers induce the transcription of candidate genes by binding to so-called peroxisome proliferator-response elements (PPRE's) consisting of DNA-specific sequences (see Figure 1).

PPARs exert a wide variety of physiological functions [24, 26]. They play a central role in the regulation of lipid and lipoprotein metabolism and glucose homeostasis, and have been shown to mediate cellular proliferation and programmed cell death (apoptosis) [27–31]. PPARs have furthermore been involved in bone metabolism and in pathologies of the cardiovascular system and the lung [32–35]. PPAR has been attributed important immunological functions due to its expression on monocytes/macrophages, T cells, and vascular endothelial cells. PPAR appears to play a crucial role in the regulation of proliferation and differentiation of various cell types. While the biological role of PPAR has not been defined in detail, recent data imply an antiapoptotic and anti-inflammatory effect after tissue injury, both in vitro and in vivo [29].

From an immunological viewpoint, PPARs have been identified as important regulators of inflammatory gene expression [36–40]. PPARs have also been shown to attenuate adaptive immune responses by inhibiting helper T cell functions and by mediating apoptosis of B cells [41, 42]. PPARs are activated by naturally ocurring fatty acid derivatives, eicosanoides, and by synthetic pharmacological agents, such as fibrates (PPAR) and glitazones (PPAR) [18, 22, 43]. PPAR ligands have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory activities in various cell types by inhibiting the gene expression for proinflammatory cytokines, metalloproteinases, and hepatic acute-phase proteins.

3. PPARs: “Key” Regulators of Neuroinflammation

Mechanistically, the activation of PPAR has been shown to inhibit proinflammatory gene transcription by repressing the central inflammatory transcription factor, nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) [43–45]. Along with suppression of NF-κB, PPAR acts by inhibition of signal transduction through activator protein-1 (AP-1) signaling [43]. It appears that the inhibitory effect of PPAR on these crucial inflammatory transcription factors creates a negative feedback loop for controlling acute posttraumatic inflammation [44–46]. First in vivo data on the involvement of PPARs in the regulation of inflammation were reported from studies in PPAR knockout mice [47]. Cuzzocrea et al. showed that the targeted deletion of the PPAR gene leads to a significantly increased inflammatory response in different experimental models of acute inflammation outside the central nervous system (CNS) [47]. Within the CNS, the constitutive expression of PPARs has been described for some time [48, 49]. Interestingly, PPAR gene expression was detected not only on vascular endothelial cells in the brain and spinal cord, but also on resident cells in the CNS, such as neurons and glial cells [49].

4. Role of PPARs in CNS Injury

In recent years, experimental studies in models of cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and spinal cord injury have revealed a crucial role of PPARs in attenuating neuroinflammation and neuronal cell death in the injured CNS (see Table 1) [14–16, 19, 20, 50, 51, 52]. PPAR gene-deficient mice PPAR were shown to have a significantly worsened neurological outcome, associated with an increased neuroinflammatory response to experimental spinal cord injury, as compared to wild-type littermates [16]. The postulated neuroprotective effects of natural PPAR ligands include the attenuation of polymorphonuclear leukocyte (PMNL) recruitment and associated neurotoxicity, as determined by a significantly reduced expression of myeloperoxidase in the injured spinal cord of PPAR mice [16]. In addition, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), a “key” mediator of neuroinflammation and neurotoxicity, was shown to be upregulated and associated with neuronal apoptosis in the injured spinal cord of PPAR mice [16]. In traumatic brain injury, experimental studies in the past decade have shown that TNF is upregulated in the intracranial compartment within a few hours after trauma, and contributes to secondary neuronal injury [53–55]. The deleterious neurotoxic effects were shown to be abrogated by pharmacological inhibition of TNF [56]. Since PPARs inhibit proinflammatory gene transcription by attenuating NF-κB signaling [43–45], the potent PPAR-mediated neuroprotective effects may be dependent on inhibition of NF-κB-dependent proinflammatory cytokines released in the injured brain, such as TNF, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-8, IL-12, and IL-18 [57–61]. The central role of NF-κB signaling in inflammation and oxidative stress explains why PPARs have been considered possible targets for neuroprotection in inflammatory CNS diseases, including traumatic brain injury [14, 20, 62, 63].

5. Pharmacology of Head Injury: Are PPAR-Agonists and Cannabinoids the Long Sought “Golden Bullet”?

A wide variety of natural and synthetic PPAR agonists have been described in recent years as regulators of microglial activation and cerebral inflammation [63]. For example, the thiazolinedione pioglitazone has been shown to reduce the extent of neuroinflammation and the severity of disease in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the animal model for multiple sclerosis (MS) [64, 65]. A recent case report described the impressive clinical improvement of a patient with chronic progressive MS, after a 3-year period of treatment with pioglitazone [66]. This unexpected clinical recovery implies that PPAR agonists may represent a promising new strategy for attenuating neuroinflammation in patients with CNS autoimmune diseases [62, 63, 67].

In cerebrovascular stroke, the combination therapy of a PPAR agonist (rosiglitazone) with an antiexcitotoxic glutamate receptor antagonist (MK-801) led to an improved neurological recovery in rats undergoing middle cerebral artery occlusion [18]. A study by another group assessed the therapeutic efficacy of two different PPAR agonists, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, in a rat model of cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury [50]. The authors showed that the pretreatment with either compound led to a significant attenuation of inflammation and oxidative stress in injured rat brains [50].

Pharmacological ligands to PPAR, such as fenofibrate, have also been shown to exert neuroprotective effects in inflammatory CNS conditions. Deplanque et al. demonstrated a significant neuroprotective effect of fenofibrate administration in C57BL/6 mice with cerebrovascular stroke [68]. The authors suggested that PPAR may represent a new pharmacological target to reduce the neuroinflammatory and neuropathological sequelae of cerebrovascular stroke [68].

In traumatic brain injury, the PPAR agonist fenofibrate appears to represent a highly promising new anti-inflammatory compound. Besson et al. assessed the pharmacological role of fenofibrate in a model of experimental fluid-percussion injury in adult male Sprague-Dawley rats [21]. The authors revealed that the administration of fenofibrate during a clinically relevant therapeutic “time window of opportunity” at 1 hour after trauma mediated a significant posttraumatic neuroprotection. This was demonstrated by improved neurological scores in the fenofibrate group at 24 hours and 7 days after trauma, compared to vehicle-treated animals [21]. Morphologically, fenofibrate treatment resulted in significantly decreased extent of brain edema at 24 hours after head injury, compared to the placebo group. The authors furthermore described a marked reduction in intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1 expression at the protein level by immunohistochemistry in injured rat brain sections after fenofibrate administration [21]. This finding implies a reduced extent of intracerebral immunoactivation and neuroinflammation in rats treated by the PPAR agonist, compared to vehicle controls.

A more recent follow-up study by the same research group assessed the role of PPAR in modulating the oxidative stress in the injured rat brain [17]. Oxidative stress and ischemia/reperfusion-mediated injuries contribute significantly to the extent of posttraumatic intracerebral inflammation and delayed secondary brain damage after head injury [13, 69, 70]. Pathophysiologically, contused brain areas are surrounded by a penumbra zone which is hypoperfused due to traumatic vascular damage, loss of cerebrovascular autoregulation, and systemic hypotension. After resuscitation, the hypoperfused, ischemic brain areas in the penumbra zone are reperfused, which leads to activation of the complement cascade and of reactive oxygen intermediates by activation of the xanthine oxidase [71, 72]. Oxygen-derived free radicals such as hydroxyl ions, hydrogen peroxide, and superoxide anion induce lipid peroxidation, cell membrane disintegration, and delayed neuronal cell death (see Figure 2). Lipid peroxidation is facilitated in the brain due to its genuine vulnerability to oxidative stress based on specific morphological characteristics, such as a high ratio of “membrane to cytoplasm” and high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the CNS [70]. In addition to reactive oxygen intermediates, the generation of nitric oxide (NO) by inducible NO synthase (iNOS) up-regulation also occurs after head injury and adds to the extent of secondary brain damage [73]. Metabolites emerging from the interaction between superoxide anion and NO, such as the highly reactive oxidant peroxynitrite, have been shown to mediate neurotoxicity and delayed neuronal cell death after traumatic brain injury [74].

Figure 2

Working hypothesis of PPAR-mediated mechanisms of neuroprotection after traumatic brain injury. The neuropathological sequelae of head injury include the posttraumatic activation of NFκB-dependent inflammatory genes. The transcription of neuroinflammatory mediators in the injured brain induces and perpetuates the intracranial inflammatory response and leads to formation of brain edema and adverse outcome. Activation of PPARs by binding of synthetic ligands, such as the PPAR agonist fenofibrate, leads to inhibition of NFκB and of downstream transcribed proinflammatory and proapoptotic mediators. In addition, cannabinoids have a dual neuroprotective function, (1) by acting as ligands to PPARs and (2) by inhibiting “key” mediators of neuroinflammation and apoptosis, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF). The combination therapy of synthetic PPAR agonists and cannabinoids may represent the long sought pharmacological “golden bullet” for the treatment of traumatic brain injury in the future.

The pharmacological administration of the PPAR agonist fenofibrate after experimental fluid-percussion injury resulted in a significant decrease of intracerebral iNOS expression [17]. This was associated with a decreased neuroinflammation in the injured brain and an improved neurological recovery after trauma [17]. These important findings imply that the attenuation of oxidative stress may represent a “key” mechanistic aspect of PPAR-mediated neuroprotection after head injury. The pleiotropic beneficial effects of PPARs in the injured brain, however, are far from being elucidated in detail until present. For example, in contrast to PPAR, no studies have yet been performed to analyze the effect of PPAR in experimental models of traumatic brain injury (see Table 1).

Despite increasing insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of posttraumatic neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration, clinical neuroprotection trials have failed to provide a benefit of anti-inflammatory pharmacological strategies with regard to the outcome after head injury [75, 76]. Cannabinoids have recently evolved as a promising new therapeutic avenue for neuroprotection after head injury [77–79]. This group of compounds consists of natural (endocannabinoids) and synthetic ligands, such as dexanabinol (HU-211). The endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) has received increased attention in recent years due to its strong neuroprotective effect after head injury, by inhibition of proinflammatory cytokines, reactive oxygen intermediates, and excitotoxic aminoacids, such as glutamate [80, 81]. The pharmacological agent dexanabinol was shown to mediate neuroprotection by inhibition of TNF production in injured rodent brains [77, 82] and was recently proposed as an effective neuroprotective strategy to reduce the extent of secondary brain injury in humans (see Figure 2) [78, 79]. Dexanabinol (HU-211) is a nonpsychotropic, synthetic cannabinoid which exerts beneficial effects by cytokine inhibition and radical scavenging associated with reduction of brain edema [77–79, 82]. Cannabinoids were attributed a new role as neuroprotective agents by agonistic action to PPARs [83]. The functional interaction between cannabinoids and PPARs was first described based on the finding of oleylethanolamide (OEA), a lipid derivate structurally related to anandamide, as a regulator of feeding behavior in rats through activation of PPAR [68, 84]. Aside from OEA, which is a low-affinity agonist to cannabinoid receptors, other cannabinoids were recently described as PPAR ligands [83]. As such, -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was found to activate PPAR in human cell lines [85]. Of particular interest for neuroprotection in traumatic brain injury is the finding that the potent endocannabinoid 2-AG [80, 81] has been found to suppress the proinflammatory cytokine IL-2 through PPAR signaling, independent of 2-AG binding to cannabinoid receptors [86]. Future studies will have to determine whether cannabinoids represent the long sought “golden bullet” for reduction of secondary brain damage after head injury. It seems reasonable to suggest that a combination of neuroprotective cannabinoids, such as dexanabinol, with other potent anti-inflammatory therapeutic agents, such as synthetic PPAR ligands, may represent a promising new therapeutic avenue for improving the outcome of traumatic brain injury.

References

T. M. McMillan and G. M. Teasdale, “Death rate is increased for at least 7 years after head injury: a prospective study,” Brain, vol. 130, no. 10, pp. 2520–2527, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Holmes, G. W. Hendey, J. A. Oman et al., “Epidemiology of blunt head injury victims undergoing ED cranial computed tomographic scanning,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 167–173, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. R. Doppenberg, S. C. Choi, and R. Bullock, “Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: lessons for the future,” Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 87–94, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Chesnut, “Care of central nervous system injuries,” Surgical Clinics of North America, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 119–156, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Bayir, P. M. Kochanek, and R. S. B. Clark, “Traumatic brain injury in infants and children mechanisms of secondary damage and treatment in the intensive care unit,” Critical Care Clinics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 529–549, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. G. Fritz and R. Bauer, “Secondary injuries in brain trauma: effects of hypothermia,” Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. M. Kochanek, R. S. B. Clark, R. A. Ruppel et al., “Biochemical, cellular, and molecular mechanisms in the evolution of secondary damage after severe traumatic brain injury in infants and children: lessons learned from the bedside,” Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–19, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. I. Schmidt, C. E. Heyde, W. Ertel, and P. F. Stahel, “Closed head injury: an inflammatory disease?” Brain Research Reviews, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 388–399, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. F. Stahel, W. R. Smith, and E. E. Moore, “Role of biological modifiers regulating the immune response after trauma,” Injury, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1409–1422, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Kelley, J. Lifshitz, and J. T. Povlishock, “Neuroinflammatory responses after experimental diffuse traumatic brain injury,” Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 989–1001, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. F. Stahel, W. R. Smith, and E. E. Moore, “Hypoxia and hypotension, the “lethal duo” in traumatic brain injury: implications for prehospital care,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 402–404, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Eastridge, J. Salinas, J. G. McManus et al., “Hypotension begins at 110 mm Hg: redefining “hypotension” with data,” Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 291–297, 2007, discussion 297–299.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Leker and E. Shohami, “Cerebral ischemia and trauma—different etiologies yet similar mechanisms: neuroprotective opportunities,” Brain Research Reviews, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55–73, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Bordet, T. Ouk, O. Petrault et al., “PPAR: a new pharmacological target for neuroprotection in stroke and neurodegenerative diseases,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1341–1346, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. van Neerven and J. Mey, “RAR/RXR and PPAR/RXR signaling in spinal cord injury,” PPAR Research, vol. 2007, Article ID 29275, 14 pages, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Genovese, E. Mazzon, R. Di Paola et al., “Role of endogenous ligands for the peroxisome proliferators activated receptors $a$ in the secondary damage in experimental spinal cord trauma,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 194, no. 1, pp. 267–278, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. R. Chen, V. C. Besson, B. Palmier, Y. Garcia, M. Plotkine, and C. Marchand-Leroux, “Neurological recovery-promoting, anti-inflammatory, and anti-oxidative effects afforded by fenofibrate, a PPAR $α$ agonist, in traumatic brain injury,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1119–1131, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Allahtavakoli, A. Shabanzadeh, A. Roohbakhsh, and A. Pourshanazari, “Combination therapy of rosiglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $γ$ ligand, and NMDA receptor antagonist (MK-801) on experimental embolic stroke in rats,” Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 309–314, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhao, G. Sun, J. Zhang et al., “Hematoma resolution as a target for intracerebral hemorrhage treatment: role for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $?$ in microglia/macrophages,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 352–362, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Kapadia, J.-H. Yi, and R. Vemuganti, “Mechanisms of anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective actions of PPAR- $γ$ agonists,” Frontiers in Bioscience, vol. 13, pp. 1813–1826, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. C. Besson, X. R. Chen, M. Plotkine, and C. Marchand-Verrecchia, “Fenofibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $α$ agonist, exerts neuroprotective effects in traumatic brain injury,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 388, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. Willson, P. J. Brown, D. D. Sternbach, and B. R. Henke, “The PPARs: from orphan receptors to drug discovery,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 527–550, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Michalik and W. Wahli, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: three isotypes for a multitude of functions,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 564–570, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Kliewer, H. E. Xu, M. H. Lambert, and T. M. Willson, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: from genes to physiology,” Recent Progress in Hormone Research, vol. 56, pp. 239–263, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Schoonjans, J. Peinado-Onsurbe, A. M. Lefebvre et al., “PPAR $a$ and PPAR $?$ activators direct a distinct tissue-specific transcriptional response via a PPRE in the lipoprotein lipase gene,” EMBO Journal, vol. 15, no. 19, pp. 5336–5348, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
B. P. Kota, T. H.-W. Huang, and B. D. Roufogalis, “An overview on biological mechanisms of PPARs,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 85–94, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Kliewer, J. M. Lenhard, T. M. Willson, I. Patel, D. C. Morris, and J. M. Lehmann, “A prostaglandin $J_{2}$ metabolite binds peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $γ$ and promotes adipocyte differentiation,” Cell, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 813–819, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. P. Brun, P. Tontonoz, B. M. Forman et al., “Differential activation of adipogenesis by multiple PPAR isoforms,” Genes and Development, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 974–984, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. S. Tan, L. Michalik, N. Noy et al., “Critical roles of PPAR $ß$ / $d$ in keratinocyte response to inflammation,” Genes & Development, vol. 15, no. 24, pp. 3263–3277, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kersten, “Peroxisome proliferator activated receptors and lipoprotein metabolism,” PPAR Research, vol. 2008, Article ID 132960, 11 pages, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Martinasso, M. Oraldi, A. Trombetta et al., “Involvement of PPARs in cell proliferation and apoptosis in human colon cancer specimens and in normal and cancer cell lines,” PPAR Research, vol. 2007, Article ID 93416, 9 pages, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Lecka-Czernik, “PPARs and bone metabolism,” PPAR Research, vol. 2006, Article ID 18089, p. 1 page, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Z. Duan, C. Y. Ivashchenko, M. G. Usher, and R. M. Mortensen, “PPAR- $γ$ in the cardiovascular system,” PPAR Research, vol. 2008, Article ID 745804, 10 pages, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Di Paola and S. Cuzzocrea, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and acute lung injury,” PPAR Research, vol. 2007, Article ID 63745, 8 pages, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H.-W. Huang, V. Razmovski-Naumovski, B. P. Kota, D. S.-H. Lin, and B. D. Roufogalis, “The pathophysiological function of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $γ$ in lung-related diseases,” Respiratory Research, vol. 6, Article ID 102, 9 pages, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Delerive, J. C. Fruchart, and B. Staels, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in inflammation control,” Journal of Endocrinology, vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 453–459, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Cabrero, J. C. Laguna, and M. Vazquez, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and the control of inflammation,” Current Drug Targets—Inflammation & Allergy, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 243–248, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Chinetti, J. C. Fruchart, and B. Staels, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs): nuclear receptors at the crossroads between lipid metabolism and inflammation,” Inflammation Research, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 497–505, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. B. Clark, “The role of PPARs in inflammation and immunity,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 388–400, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
R. A. Daynes and D. C. Jones, “Emerging roles of PPARs in inflammation and immunity,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 748–759, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. B. Clark, D. Bishop-Bailey, T. Estrada-Hernandez, T. Hla, L. Puddington, and S. J. Padula, “The nuclear receptor PPAR $γ$ and immunoregulation: PPAR $γ$ mediates inhibition of helper T cell responses,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 164, no. 3, pp. 1364–1371, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
D. M. Ray, F. Akbiyik, S. H. Bernstein, and R. P. Phipps, “CD40 engagement prevents peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $γ$ agonist-induced apoptosis of B lymphocytes and B lymphoma cells by an NF- $κ B$ -dependent mechanism,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 174, pp. 4060–4069, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Staels and J.-C. Fruchart, “Therapeutic roles of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists,” Diabetes, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 2460–2470, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Poynter and R. A. Daynes, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $α$ activation modulates cellular redox status, represses nuclear factor- $κ B$ signaling, and reduces inflammatory cytokine production in aging,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 273, no. 49, pp. 32833–32841, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Desvergne and W. Wahli, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: nuclear control of metabolism,” Endocrine Reviews, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 649–688, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Michalik and W. Wahli, “Involvement of PPAR nuclear receptors in tissue injury and wound repair,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 598–606, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cuzzocrea, E. Mazzon, R. Di Paola et al., “The role of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $a$ (PPAR- $a$ ) in the regulation of acute inflammation,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 999–1010, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. E. Cullingford, K. Bhakoo, S. Peuchen, C. T. Dolphin, R. Patel, and J. B. Clark, “Distribution of mRNAs encoding the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $α$ , $β$ , and $γ$ and the retinoid X receptor $α$ , $β$ , and $γ$ in rat central nervous system,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 1366–1375, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Moreno, S. Farioli-Vecchioli, and M. P. Cerù, “Immunolocalization of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and retinoid X receptors in the adult rat CNS,” Neuroscience, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 131–145, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Collino, M. Aragno, R. Mastrocola et al., “Modulation of the oxidative stress and inflammatory response by PPAR- $?$ agonists in the hippocampus of rats exposed to cerebral ischemia/reperfusion,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 530, no. 1-2, pp. 70–80, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-D. Chen, H.-Y. Wu, D.-I. Yang et al., “Effects of rosiglitazone on global ischemia-induced hippocampal injury and expression of mitochondrial uncoupling protein 2,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 351, no. 1, pp. 198–203, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Luo, W. Yin, A. P. Signore et al., “Neuroprotection against focal ischemic brain injury by the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $?$ agonist rosiglitazone,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 435–448, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Shohami, M. Novikov, R. Bass, A. Yamin, and R. Gallily, “Closed head injury triggers early production of TNF- $α$ and IL-6 by brain tissue,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, vol. 14, pp. 615–619, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Fan, P. R. Young, F. C. Barone, G. Z. Feuerstein, D. H. Smith, and T. K. McIntosh, “Experimental brain injury induces differential expression of tumor necrosis factor- $α$ mRNA in the CNS,” Molecular Brain Research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 287–291, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Knoblach, L. Fan, and A. I. Faden, “Early neuronal expression of tumor necrosis factor- $α$ after experimental brain injury contributes to neurological impairment,” Journal of Neuroimmunology, vol. 95, no. 1-2, pp. 115–125, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Shohami, R. Bass, D. Wallach, A. Yamin, and R. Gallily, “Inhibition of tumor necrosis factor $α$ (TNF $α$ ) activity in rat brain is associated with cerebroprotection after closed head injury,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, vol. 16, pp. 378–384, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Shohami, I. Ginis, and J. M. Hallenbeck, “Dual role of tumor necrosis factor $α$ in brain injury,” Cytokine and Growth Factor Reviews, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 119–130, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gopcevic, B. Mazul-Sunko, J. Marout et al., “Plasma interleukin-8 as a potential predictor of mortality in adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury,” Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 211, no. 4, pp. 387–393, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. F. Stahel, T. Kossmann, H. Joller, O. Trentz, and M. C. Morganti-Kossmann, “Increased interleukin-12 levels in human cerebrospinal fluid following severe head trauma,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 249, no. 2-3, pp. 123–126, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Felderhoff-Mueser, O. I. Schmidt, A. Oberholzer, C. Buhrer, and P. F. Stahel, “IL-18: a key player in neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration?” Trends in Neurosciences, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 487–493, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-M. Lucas, N. J. Rothwell, and R. M. Gibson, “The role of inflammation in CNS injury and disease,” British Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 147, supplement 1, pp. S232–S240, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Bordet, P. Gelé, P. Duriez, and J.-C. Fruchart, “PPARs: a new target for neuroprotection,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 285–286, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bernando and L. Minghetti, “PPAR- $γ$ agonists as regulators of microglial activation and brain inflammation,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 93–109, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Niino, K. Iwabuchi, S. Kikuchi et al., “Amelioration of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in C57BL/6 mice by an agonist of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $?$ ,” Journal of Neuroimmunology, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 40–48, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Natarajan and J. J. Bright, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $γ$ agonists inhibit experimental allergic encephalomyelitis by blocking IL-12 production, IL-12 signaling and Th1 differentiation,” Genes & Immunity, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 59–70, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. A. Pershadsingh, M. T. Heneka, R. Saini, N. M. Amin, D. J. Broeske, and D. L. Feinstein, “Effect of pioglitazone treatment in a patient with secondary multiple sclerosis,” Journal of Neuroinflammation, vol. 1, article 3, pp. 1–4, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. E. Mrak and G. E. Landreth, “PPAR $γ$ , neuroinflammation, and disease,” Journal of Neuroinflammation, vol. 1, article 5, pp. 1–3, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Deplanque, P. Gelé, O. Pétrault et al., “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- $a$ activation as a mechanism of preventive neuroprotection induced by chronic fenofibrate treatment,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 6264–6271, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
O. I. Schmidt, M. Infanger, C. E. Heyde, W. Ertel, and P. F. Stahel, “The role of neuroinflammation in traumatic brain injury,” European Journal of Trauma, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 135–149, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. H. Evans, “Free radicals in brain metabolism and pathology,” British Medical Bulletin, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 577–587, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
P. F. Stahel, M. C. Morganti-Kossmann, and T. Kossmann, “The role of the complement system in traumatic brain injury,” Brain Research Reviews, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 243–256, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. L. D'Ambrosio, D. J. Pinsky, and E. S. Connolly, “The role of the complement cascade in ischemia/reperfusion injury: implications for neuroprotection,” Molecular Medicine, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 367–382, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Cherian, J. C. Goodman, and C. S. Robertson, “Brain nitric oxide changes after controlled cortical impact injury in rats,” Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 2171–2178, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
E. D. Hall, N. C. Kupina, and J. S. Althaus, “Peroxynitrite scavengers for the acute treatment of traumatic brain injury,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 890, no. 1, pp. 462–468, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Narayan, M. E. Michel, B. Ansell et al., “Clinical trials in head injury,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 503–557, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. DeGraba and L. C. Pettigrew, “Why do neuroprotective drugs work in animals but not humans?” Neurologic Clinics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 475–493, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Shohami, R. Gallily, R. Mechoulam, R. Bass, and T. Ben-Hur, “Cytokine production in the brain following closed head injury: dexanabinol (HU-211) is a novel TNF- $α$ inhibitor and an effective neuroprotectant,” Journal of Neuroimmunology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 169–177, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Mechoulam, D. Panikashvili, and E. Shohami, “Cannabinoids and brain injury: therapeutic implications,” Trends in Molecular Medicine, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 58–61, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Bayir, R. S. B. Clark, and P. M. Kochanek, “Promising strategies to minimize secondary brain injury after head trauma,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 31, supplement 1, pp. S112–S117, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Panikashvili, C. Simeonidou, S. Ben-Shabat et al., “An endogenous cannabinoid (2-AG) is neuroprotective after brain injury,” Nature, vol. 413, pp. 527–531, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Mechoulam and E. Shohami, “Endocannabinoids and traumatic brain injury,” Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 68–74, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Shohami, M. Novikov, and R. Mechoulam, “A nonpsychotropic cannabinoid, HU-211, has cerebroprotective effects after closed head injury in the rat,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 109–119, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Sun and A. Bennett, “Cannabinoids: a new group of agonists of PPARs,” PPAR Research, vol. 2007, Article ID 23513, 7 pages, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Fu, F. Oveisi, S. Gaetani, E. Lin, and D. Piomelli, “Oleoylethanolamide, an endogenous PPAR- $α$ agonist, lowers body weight and hyperlipidemia in obese rats,” Neuropharmacology, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1147–1153, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. O'Sullivan, E. J. Tarling, A. J. Bennett, D. A. Kendall, and M. D. Randall, “Novel time-dependent vascular actions of $Δ^{9}$ -tetrahydrocannabinol mediated by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $γ$ ,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 337, no. 3, pp. 824–831, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Rockwell, N. T. Snider, J. T. Thompson, J. P. Vanden Heuvel, and N. E. Kaminski, “Interleukin-2 suppression by 2-arachidonyl glycerol is mediated through peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor $γ$ independently of cannabinoid receptors 1 and 2,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 101–111, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2008 Philip F. Stahel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1593

Downloads

1055

Citations