MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acute Complement Inhibition Potentiates Neurorehabilitation and Enhances tPA-Mediated Neuroprotection

2018· article· en· W2808776157 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Alawieh, Meredith Andersen, DeAnna L. Adkins, Stephen Tomlinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesAmerican Heart AssociationCentre d'Imagerie BioMédicaleEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMedical University of South CarolinaU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsNeuroprotectionMedicineNeuroinflammationComplement systemTissue plasminogen activatorNeurorehabilitationStroke (engine)PharmacologyInflammationNeuroscienceInternal medicineRehabilitationImmunologyImmune systemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because complement activation in the subacute or chronic phase after stroke was recently shown to stimulate neural plasticity, we investigated how complement activation and complement inhibition in the acute phase after murine stroke interacts with subsequent rehabilitation therapy to modulate neuroinflammation and neural remodeling. We additionally investigated how complement and complement inhibition interacts with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), the other standard of care therapy for stroke, and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration preclinical requirement for translation of an experimental stroke therapy. CR2fH, an injury site-targeted inhibitor of the alternative complement pathway, significantly reduced infarct volume, hemorrhagic transformation, and mortality and significantly improved long-term motor and cognitive performance when administered 1.5 or 24 h after middle cerebral artery occlusion. CR2fH interrupted a poststroke inflammatory process and significantly reduced inflammatory cytokine release, microglial activation, and astrocytosis. Rehabilitation alone showed mild anti-inflammatory effects, including reduced complement activation, but only improved cognitive recovery. CR2fH combined with rehabilitation significantly potentiated cognitive and motor recovery compared with either intervention alone and was associated with higher growth factor release and enhanced rehabilitation-induced neuroblast migration and axonal remodeling. Similar outcomes were seen in adult, aged, and female mice. Using a microembolic model, CR2fH administered in combination with acute tPA therapy improved overall survival and enhanced the neuroprotective effects of tPA, extending the treatment window for tPA therapy. A human counterpart of CR2fH has been shown to be safe and nonimmunogenic in humans and we have demonstrated robust deposition of C3d, the CR2fH targeting epitope, in ischemic human brains after stroke. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Complement inhibition is a potential therapeutic approach for stroke, but it is not known how complement inhibition would interact with current standards of care. We show that, after murine ischemic stroke, rehabilitation alone induced mild anti-inflammatory effects and improved cognitive, but not motor recovery. However, brain-targeted and specific inhibition of the alternative complement pathway, when combined with rehabilitation, significantly potentiated cognitive and motor recovery compared with either intervention alone via mechanisms involving neuroregeneration and enhanced brain remodeling. Further, inhibiting the alternative pathway of complement significantly enhanced the neuroprotective effects of thrombolytic therapy and markedly expanded the therapeutic window for thrombolytic therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207