↓ Skip to main content

Valproic acid attenuates traumatic spinal cord injury-induced inflammation via STAT1 and NF-κB pathway dependent of HDAC3

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Valproic acid attenuates traumatic spinal cord injury-induced inflammation via STAT1 and NF-κB pathway dependent of HDAC3
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12974-018-1193-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shoubo Chen, Jingfang Ye, Xiangrong Chen, Jinnan Shi, Wenhua Wu, Wenping Lin, Weibin Lin, Yasong Li, Huangde Fu, Shun Li

Abstract

Microglial polarization with M1/M2 phenotype shifts and the subsequent neuroinflammatory responses are vital contributing factors for spinal cord injury (SCI)-induced secondary injury. Nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) is considered the central transcription factor of inflammatory mediators, which plays a crucial role in microglial activation. Lysine acetylation of STAT1 seems necessary for NF-kB pathway activity, as it is regulated by histone deacetylases (HDACs). There have been no studies that have explained if HDAC inhibition by valproic acid (VPA) affects the NF-κB pathway via acetylation of STAT1 dependent of HDAC activity in the microglia-mediated central inflammation following SCI. We investigated the potential molecular mechanisms that focus on the phenotypic transition of microglia and the STAT1-mediated NF-κB acetylation after a VPA treatment. The Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan locomotion scale, the inclined plane test, the blood-spinal cord barrier, and Nissl staining were employed to determine the neuroprotective effects of VPA treatment after SCI. Assessment of microglia polarization and pro-inflammatory markers, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and interferon (INF)-γ was used to evaluate the neuroinflammatory responses and the anti-inflammatory effects of VPA treatment. Immunofluorescent staining and Western blot analysis were used to detect HDAC3 nuclear translocation, activity, and NF-κB signaling pathway activation to evaluate the effects of VPA treatment. The impact of STAT1 acetylation on NF-kB pathway and the interaction between STAT1 and NF-kB were assessed to evaluate anti-inflammation effects of VPA treatment and also whether these effects were dependent on a STAT1/NF-κB pathway to gain further insight into the mechanisms underlying the development of the neuroinflammatory response after SCI. The results showed that the VPA treatment promoted the phenotypic shift of microglia from M1 to M2 phenotype and inhibited microglial activation, thus reducing the SCI-induced inflammatory factors. The VPA treatment upregulation of the acetylation of STAT1/NF-κB pathway was likely caused by the HDAC3 translocation to the nucleus and activity. These results indicated that the treatment with the VPA suppressed the expression and the activity of HDAC3 and enhanced STAT1, as well as NF-κB p65 acetylation following a SCI. The acetylation status of NF-kB p65 and the complex with NF-κB p65 and STAT1 inhibited the NF-kB p65 transcriptional activity and attenuated the microglia-mediated central inflammatory response following SCI. These results suggested that the VPA treatment attenuated the inflammatory response by modulating microglia polarization through STAT1-mediated acetylation of the NF-κB pathway, dependent of HDAC3 activity. These effects led to neuroprotective effects following SCI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 35 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 14%
Neuroscience 12 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 42 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#16,371,088
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#1,879
of 2,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,119
of 333,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#47
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.