Search

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy in preserving the integrity of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Loss of the BBB is the key event associated with morbidity and mortality in these patients. However, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. In the present study, the effects of VEGF inhibition and the possible mechanism that underlies acute cerebral ischemia in rats was investigated. Following the induction of transient middle cerebral artery occlusion for a 90‑min period, either an anti‑VEGF neutralizing antibody (RB‑222; 5 or 10 µg), or IgG (control), was administered by intracerebroventricular injection at 1 h following reperfusion. Functional outcomes, BBB leakage, brain edema, microvessel numbers and the relative protein levels of VEGF, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-9, occludin and collagen-IV were then determined using neurological assessments, Evans Blue staining, brain water content, CD31 staining and western blotting. Treatment with RB‑222 at a dose of 5 and 10 µg significantly improved neurological functional outcomes and diminished infarct size, BBB leakage and brain edema compared with the MCAO and IgG groups at 24 h following reperfusion; 10 µg RB‑222 was more effective than a 5 µg dose of the antibody. In addition, RB‑222 reduced the number of immature microvessels, which subsequently attenuated BBB permeability. RB‑222 significantly repressed VEGF expression as well as decreased MMP‑2 and MMP‑9 expression. However, it enhanced occludin and collagen‑IV levels in the ischemic rat brain compared with the MCAO and IgG groups. Taken together, the results indicate that early inhibition of VEGF may have significant potential against cerebral ischemia, partly by regulating the expression of MMPs.

Mol Med Rep 12: [Related article:] 6702–6710, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2015.4229 After the publication of the article, it has been brought to the authors' attention by an interested reader that we had made an error regarding the presentation of certain data in the manuscript. The error relates to the presentation of Figs. 1 and 2 in the paper: The control panels for Fig. 1C [labelled 'cyclopamine (µM)'] and Figs. 2B and C [labelled 'rhSSH (µg/ml)'] were derived from the same image. The control U251 cells, featured in Fig. 1 and Figs. 2B and C, were treated without cyclopamine and rhSHH. Therefore, the U251 cells treated without cyclopamine and rhSHH were considered as a control group compared with U251 cells that were separately treated with cyclopamine or rhSHH, and these were photographed randomly. A new Fig. 2 is provided, which contains the correct data for the control panels for Figs. 2B and C.