摘要
目的 动态观察Nav1.2、Nav1.6在氯化锂-匹罗卡品癫痫模型大鼠海马CA3区的表达变化,探讨两者在癫痫发病机制中的可能作用.方法 采用随机数字表法,将90只健康雄性SD大鼠随机分为实验组(n=45)和对照组(n=45),实验组予以腹腔注射氯化锂-匹罗卡品致痫,对照组予生理盐水假处理.根据时间点又分为3个亚组:24 h(n=15)组(n=15)、7d组(n=15)和60 d组(n=15),采用随机数字表法将每亚组再随机分为3个小组(n=5)分别进行免疫组化、Western印迹及RT-PCR方法检测Nav1.2、Nav1.6在大鼠海马CA3区的动态表达.结果 (1)免疫组化检测示实验24 h组海马CA3区Nav1.2蛋白表达相对对照组差异无统计学意义(P=0.492),而实验组Nav1.6蛋白表达(0.398±0.019)较对照组(0.313 ±0.017)显著升高,差异具有统计学意义(P =0.034);实验7d组海马CA3区Nav1.2和Nav1.6蛋白相对对照组差异无统计学意义(P=0.157,0.109);实验60 d组Nav1.2蛋白表达(0.117±0.009)较对照组(0.155±0.010)显著降低,差异具有统计学意义(P =0.002),而实验组Nav1.6蛋白表达(0.400±0.009)较对照组(0.318±0.010)显著升高,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.018).(2) Western印迹检测示实验24 h组海马CA3区Nav1.2蛋白表达较对照组差异无统计学意义(P=0.472),实验组Nav1.6蛋白表达(0.419±0.027)较对照组(0.290±0.007)显著升高,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.001);7 d组Nav1.2和Nav1.6蛋白表达较对照组差异无统计学意义(P=0.517,0.514);60 d组实验组Nav1.2蛋白表达(0.209 ±0.077)较对照组(0.339±0.080)明显降低,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.024),实验组Nav1.6蛋白表达(0.772±0.029)较对照组(0.489±0.014)显著升高,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.00I).(3)RT-PCR检测示实验24 h组海马CA3区Nav1.2 mRNA表达较对照组差异无统计学意义(P =0.453),实验组Nav1.6mRNA表达(2.250±0.117)较对照组(0.998±0.139)显著升高,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.001);7d组Nav1.2和Nav1.6 mRNA表达较对照组差异无统计学意义(P=0.493,0.624);60 d组实验组Nav1.2 mRNA表达(0.718±0.056)较对照组(1.000±0.026)明显降低,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.027),实验组Nav1.6 mRNA表达(2.445±0.167)较对照组(1.003±0.060)显著升高,差异具有统计学意义(P =0.001).结论 Nav1.2和Nav1.6均参与氯化锂-匹罗卡品癫痫大鼠慢性自发性癫痫形成,且Nav1.6在大鼠急性期痫性发作中发挥了作用.
Objective To observe the expressions of Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 in the hippocampal CA3 region of lithium chloride-pilocarpine epileptic rats to explore their potential roles in epileptogenesis.Methods A total of 90 healthy male SD rats were randomly divided into normal control group (physiological saline) and epilepstic group (lithium chloride-pilocarpine).According to different timepoints,the control and epilepstic groups were randomly divided into 3 subgroups of 24-hour,7-day and 60-day.Then immunohistochemistry,Western blot and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were employed to detect the expressions of Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 in hippocampal CA3 region of rats.Results Immunohistochemisty showed that,at 24 hours,the expression of Nav1.2 had no significant difference (P =0.492) while Nav1.6 significantly increased as compared with controls(0.398 ±0.019 vs 0.313 ±0.017,P =0.034).At Day 7,both Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 had no significant change (P =0.157,0.109).Nav1.2 significantly decreased at Day 60 (0.117 ±0.009 vs 0.155 ±0.010,P =0.002).But Nav1.6 significantly increased(0.400 ±0.009 vs 0.318 ±0.010,P =0.018).Western blot showed that Nav1.2 protein had no significant difference at 24 hours (P =0.472) while Nav1.6 significantly increased (0.419 ± 0.027 vs 0.290 ±0.007,P =0.001).At Day 7,Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 proteins had no significant change (P =0.517,0.514).At Day 60,Nav1.2 protein significantly decreased (0.209 ±0.077 vs 0.339 ±0.080,P=0.024) while Nav1.6 significantly increased (0.772 ± 0.029 vs 0.489 ± 0.014,P =0.001).RT-PCR showed the same results as Western blot and immunohistochemisty.Nav1.2 mRNA had no significantly difference at 24 hours(P =0.453) while Nav1.6 mRNA significantly increased (2.250 ± 0.117 vs 0.998 ± 0.139,P =0.001) ; at Day 7,both Nav1.2 mRNA and Nav1.6 mRNA had no significant change (P =0.493,0.624).Nav 1.2 mRNA significantly decreased at Day 60 (0.718 ± 0.056 vs 1.000 ± 0.026,P =0.027).But Nav1.6 mRNA significantly increased (2.445 ± 0.167 vs 1.003 ± 0.060,P =0.001).Conclusion Both Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 are involved in the formation of chronic spontaneous recurrent seizures.And Nav1.6 also plays an important role in acute phase of seizures.
出处
《中华医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2015年第1期61-65,共5页
National Medical Journal of China
基金
国家自然科学基金青年基金(81000553)