New monocyte locomotion inhibitory factor analogs protect against cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats

Network pharmacology and molecular docking-based analysis of protective mechanism of MLIF in ischemic stroke

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the potential mechanism by which Monocyte locomotion inhibitory factor (MLIF) improves the outcome of ischemic stroke (IS) inflammatory injury.

Methods

Potential MLIF-related targets were predicted using Swiss TargetPrediction and PharmMapper, while IS-related targets were found from GeneCards, PharmGKB, and Therapeutic Target Database (TTD). After obtaining the intersection from these two datasets, the Search Tool for Retrieval of Interacting Genes/Protein (STRING11.0) database was used to analyze the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of the intersection and candidate genes for MLIF treatment of IS. The candidate genes were imported into the Metascape database for Gene Ontology (GO) functional analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment. The top 20 core genes and the “MLIF-target-pathway” network were mapped using the Cytoscape3.9.1. Using AutoDock Vina1.1.2, the molecular docking validation of the hub targets and MLIF was carried out. In the experimental part, transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (tMCAO) and oxygen and glucose deprivation (OGD) models were used to evaluate the protective efficacy of MLIF and the expression of inflammatory cytokines and the putative targets.

Results

MLIF was expected to have an effect on 370 targets. When these targets were intersected with 1,289 targets for ischemic stroke, 119 candidate therapeutic targets were found. The key enriched pathways were PI3K-Akt signaling pathway and MAPK signaling pathway, etc. The GO analysis yielded 1,677 GO entries (P < 0.01), such as hormone stimulation, inflammatory response, etc. The top 20 core genes included AKT1, EGFR, IGF1, MAPK1, MAPK10, MAPK14, etc. The result of molecular docking demonstrated that MLIF had the strong binding capability to JNK (MAPK10). The in vitro and in vivo studies also confirmed that MLIF protected against IS by lowering JNK (MAPK10) and AP-1 levels and decreasing pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6).

Conclusion

MLIF may exert a cerebral protective effect by inhibiting the inflammatory response through suppressing the JNK/AP-1 signaling pathway.

Neuroprotective effect of immunomodulatory peptides in rats with traumatic spinal cord injury

Several therapies have shown obvious effects on structural conservation contributing to motor functional recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI). Nevertheless, neither strategy has achieved a convincing effect. We purposed a combined therapy of immunomodulatory peptides that individually have shown significant effects on motor functional recovery in rats with SCI. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of the combined therapy of monocyte locomotion inhibitor factor (MLIF), A91 peptide, and glutathione monoethyl ester (GSH-MEE) on chronic-stage spinal cord injury. Female Sprague-Dawley rats underwent a laminectomy of the T9 vertebra and a moderate contusion. Six groups were included: sham, PBS, MLIF + A91, MLIF + GSH-MEE, A91 + GSH-MEE, and MLIF + A91 + GSH-MEE. Two months after injury, motor functional recovery was evaluated using the open field test. Parenchyma and white matter preservation was evaluated using hematoxylin & eosin staining and Luxol Fast Blue staining, respectively. The number of motoneurons in the ventral horn and the number of axonal fibers were determined using hematoxylin & eosin staining and immunohistochemistry, respectively. Collagen deposition was evaluated using Masson's trichrome staining. The combined therapy of MLIF, A91, and GSH-MEE greatly contributed to motor functional recovery and preservation of the medullary parenchyma, white matter, motoneurons, and axonal fibres, and reduced the deposition of collagen in the lesioned area. The combined therapy of MLIF, A91, and GSH-MEE preserved spinal cord tissue integrity and promoted motor functional recovery of rats after SCI. This study was approved by the National Commission for Scientific Research on Bioethics and Biosafety of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social under registration number R-2015-785-116 (approval date November 30, 2015) and R-2017-3603-33 (approval date June 5, 2017).

Evaluation of Preclinical and Clinical Studies Published in Medical Journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Methodology Issues

INTRODUCTION

Results of preclinical and clinical studies in medicine could be trusted only if their design and statistical analysis were appropriate.

AIM

The aim of our study was to investigate whether preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina satisfy basic requirements for appropriate design and statistical interpretation of data.

METHODS

Preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina were retrieved from the PubMed database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. Implementation rate of basic principles of experimental design (local control, randomization and replication) and rate of the most common errors in design of clinical/observational studies was established by careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria.

RESULTS

Our study showed that only a minority of experimental preclinical studies had basic principles of design completely implemented (7%), while implementation rate of single aspects of appropriate experimental design varied from as low as 12% to as high as 77%. Only one of the clinical/observational studies had none of the errors searched for (2%), and specific errors rates varied from 10% to 89%. Average impact factor of the surveyed studies was around one, and average publication date recent, less than 5 years ago.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of preclinical studies that did not follow completely basic principles of research design, and that of clinical/observational studies with errors are high, raising suspicion to validity of their results. If incorrect and not protected against bias, results of published studies may adversely influence future research.