Home › Research › Drug development
A novel dual-glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist is neuroprotective in transient focal cerebral ischemia in the rat
Han L, Hölscher C, Xue GF, Li G, Li D.. Neuroreport, 2016-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists have been shown to be neuroprotective in previous studies in animal models of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. Recently, novel dual-GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists that activate both receptors (DA) were developed to treat diabetes. We tested the protective effects of a novel potent DA against middle cerebral artery occlusion injury in rats and compared it with a potent GLP-1 analog, Val(8)-GLP-1(glu-PAL). Animals were evaluated for neurologic deficit score, infarct volume, and immunohistochemical analyses of the brain at several time points after ischemia. The Val(8)-GLP-1(glu-PAL)-treated and DA-treated groups showed significantly reduced scores of neurological dysfunction, cerebral infarction size, and percentage of TUNEL-positive apoptotic neurons. Furthermore, the expression of the apoptosis marker Bax, the inflammation marker iNOS, and the survival marker Bcl-2 was significantly increased. The DA-treated group was better protected against neurodegeneration than the Val(8)-GLP-1(glu-PAL) group, and the scores of neurological dysfunction, cerebral infarction size, and expression of Bcl-2 were higher, whereas the percentage of TUNEL-positive neurons and the levels of Bax and iNOS were lower in the DA group. DA treatment reduced the infarct volume and improved the functional deficit. It also suppressed the inflammatory response and cell apoptosis after reperfusion. In conclusion, the novel GIP and GLP-1 dual-receptor agonist is more neuroprotective than a GLP-1 receptor agonist in key biomarkers of neuronal degeneration.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Han, L., Hölscher, C., Xue, G. F., Li, G., & Li, D. (2016). A novel dual-glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist is neuroprotective in transient focal cerebral ischemia in the rat. Neuroreport. https://doi.org/10.1097/wnr.0000000000000490
Vancouver
Han L, Hölscher C, Xue GF, Li G, Li D. A novel dual-glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist is neuroprotective in transient focal cerebral ischemia in the rat. Neuroreport. 2016. doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000000490. PMID: 26555034.
BibTeX
@article{han2016-26555034,
author = {Han, L. and Hölscher, C. and Xue, G. F. and Li, G. and Li, D.},
title = {{A novel dual-glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist is neuroprotective in transient focal cerebral ischemia in the rat}},
journal = {Neuroreport},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1097/wnr.0000000000000490},
pmid = {26555034},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/wnr.0000000000000490}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The Val(8)-GLP-1(glu-PAL)-treated and DA-treated groups showed significantly reduced scores of neurological dysfunction, cerebral infarction size, and percentage of TUNEL-positive apoptotic neurons.
- Furthermore, the expression of the apoptosis marker Bax, the inflammation marker iNOS, and the survival marker Bcl-2 was significantly increased.
- In conclusion, the novel GIP and GLP-1 dual-receptor agonist is more neuroprotective than a GLP-1 receptor agonist in key biomarkers of neuronal degeneration.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroreport) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Laboratory or animal study (title names “rat”) — scores zero |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26555034) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development
Also in Drug development
95 studies in the library are filed under Drug development with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Drug development hub.