Learning and Stroke Recovery: Parallelism of Biological Substrates

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mechanisms of Motor Recovery Poststroke

Stroke remains a leading cause of disability. Motor recovery requires the interaction of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms, which reinforce each other. Injury to the brain initiates a biphasic neuroimmune process, which opens a window for spontaneous recovery during which the brain is particularly sensitive to activity. Physical activity during this sensitive period can lead to rapid recovery by potentiating anti-inflammatory and neuroplastic processes. On the other hand, lack of physical activity can lead to early closure of the sensitive period and downstream changes in muscles, such as sarcopenia, muscle stiffness, and reduced cardiovascular capacity, and blood flow that impede recovery.

A novel small-molecular CCR5 antagonist promotes neural repair after stroke

Chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is one of the main co-receptors of HIV-1, and has been found to be a potential therapeutic target for stroke. Maraviroc is a classic CCR5 antagonist, which is undergoing clinical trials against stroke. As maraviroc shows poor blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability, it is of interest to find novel CCR5 antagonists suitable for neurological medication. In this study we characterized the therapeutic potential of a novel CCR5 antagonist A14 in treating ischemic stroke mice. A14 was discovered in screening millions compounds in the Chemdiv library based on the molecular docking diagram of CCR5 and maraviroc. We found that A14 dose-dependently inhibited the CCR5 activity with an IC50 value of 4.29 μM. Pharmacodynamic studies showed that A14 treatment exerted protective effects against neuronal ischemic injury both in vitro and vivo. In a SH-SY5Y cell line overexpressing CCR5, A14 (0.1, 1 μM) significantly alleviated OGD/R-induced cell injury. We found that the expression of CCR5 and its ligand CKLF1 was significantly upregulated during both acute and recovery period in focal cortical stroke mice; oral administration of A14 (20 mg·kg-1·d-1, for 1 week) produced sustained protective effect against motor impairment. A14 treatment had earlier onset time, lower onset dosage and much better BBB permeability compared to maraviroc. MRI analysis also showed that A14 treatment significantly reduced the infarction volume after 1 week of treatment. We further revealed that A14 treatment blocked the protein-protein interaction between CCR5 and CKLF1, increasing the activity of CREB signaling pathway in neurons, thereby improving axonal sprouting and synaptic density after stroke. In addition, A14 treatment remarkably inhibited the reactive proliferation of glial cells after stroke and reduced the infiltration of peripheral immune cells. These results demonstrate that A14 is a promising novel CCR5 antagonist for promoting neuronal repair after ischemic stroke. A14 blocked the protein-protein interaction between CKLF1 and CCR5 after stroke by binding with CCR5 stably, improved the infarct area and promoted motor recovery through reversing the CREB/pCREB signaling which was inhibited by activated CCR5 Gαi pathway, and benefited to the dendritic spines and axons sprouting.

May Dual Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhance the Efficacy of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Promoting Upper Limb Recovery in Chronic Stroke?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether dual transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may enhance the efficacy of exoskeleton robotic training on upper limb motor functions in patients with chronic stroke.

METHODS

A prospective, bi-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial study was performed. Patients with moderate-to-severe stroke (according to The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) were randomly assigned to receive dual or sham tDCS immediately before robotic therapy (10 sessions, 2 weeks). The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer for Upper Extremity, assessed before, after, and at the 12-week follow-up. Neurophysiological evaluation of corticospinal projections to upper limb muscles was performed by recording motor evoked potentials (MEPs). ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03026712.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty individuals were tested for eligibility, of which 80 were enrolled and agreed to participate. Excluding 14 dropouts, 66 patients were randomly assigned into the 2 groups. Results showed that chronic patients were stable before treatment and significantly improved after that. The records within subject improvements were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, a post-hoc analysis subdividing patients in 2 subgroups based on the presence or absence of MEPs at the baseline showed a significantly higher effect of real tDCS in patients without MEPs when compared to patients with MEPs (F = 4.6, P = .007).

CONCLUSION

The adjunction of dual tDCS to robotic arm training did not further enhance recovery in the treated sample of patients with chronic stroke. However, a significant improvement in the subgroup of patients with a severe corticospinal dysfunction (as suggested by the absence of MEPs) suggests that they could benefit from such a treatment combination.