Protection against Recurrent Stroke with Resveratrol: Endothelial Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increased risk of a recurrent stroke following a minor stroke, information is minimal regarding the interaction between injurious mild cerebral ischemic episodes and the possible treatments which might be effective. The aim of the current study was to investigate recurrent ischemic stroke and whether resveratrol, a nutritive polyphenol with promising cardio- and neuro- protective properties, could ameliorate the associated brain damage. Experiments in adult rats demonstrated that a mild ischemic stroke followed by a second mild cerebral ischemia exacerbated brain damage, and, daily oral resveratrol treatment after the first ischemic insult reduced ischemic cell death with the recurrent insult (P<0.002). Further investigation demonstrated reduction of both inflammatory changes and markers of oxidative stress in resveratrol treated animals. The protection observed with resveratrol treatment could not be explained by systemic effects of resveratrol treatment including effects either on blood pressure or body temperature measured telemetrically. Investigation of resveratrol effects on the blood-brain barrier in vivo demonstrated that resveratrol treatment reduced blood-brain barrier disruption and edema following recurrent stroke without affecting regional cerebral blood flow. Investigation of the mechanism in primary cell culture studies demonstrated that resveratrol treatment significantly protected endothelial cells against an in vitro 'ischemia' resulting in improved viability against oxygen and glucose deprivation (39.6 ± 6.6% and 81.3 ± 9.5% in vehicle and resveratrol treated cells, respectively). An inhibition of nitric oxide synthesis did not prevent the improved cell viability following oxygen glucose deprivation but SIRT-1 inhibition with sirtinol partially blocked the protection (P<0.001) suggesting endothelial protection is to some extent SIRT-1 dependent. Collectively, the results support that oral resveratrol treatment provides a low risk strategy to protect the brain from enhanced damage produced by recurrent stroke which is mediated in part by a protective effect of resveratrol on the endothelium of the cerebrovasculature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".