Perinatal asphyxia (PA) is a clinical condition characterized by oxygen supply suspension before, during, or immediately after birth, and it is an important risk factor for neurodevelopmental damage. Its estimated 1/1000 live births incidence in developed countries rises to 5–10-fold in developing countries. Schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, epilepsy, blindness, and others are among the highly disabling chronic pathologies associated with PA. However, so far, there is no effective therapy to neutralize or reduce PA-induced harm. Selective regulators of estrogen activity in tissues and selective estrogen receptor modulators like raloxifene have shown neuroprotective activity in different pathological scenarios. Their effect on PA is yet unknown. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether raloxifene showed neuroprotection in an oxygen–glucose deprivation/reoxygenation astrocyte cell model. To study this issue, T98G cells in culture were treated with a glucose-free DMEM medium and incubated at 37 °C in a hypoxia chamber with 1% O2 for 3, 6, 12, and 24 h. Cultures were supplemented with raloxifene 10, and 100 nM during both glucose and oxygen deprivation and reoxygenation periods. Raloxifene 100 nM and 10 nM improved cell survival—65.34% and 70.56%, respectively, compared with the control cell groups. Mitochondrial membrane potential was preserved by 58.9% 10 nM raloxifene and 81.57% 100 nM raloxifene cotreatment. Raloxifene co-treatment reduced superoxide production by 72.72% and peroxide production by 57%. Mitochondrial mass was preserved by 47.4%, 75.5%, and 89% in T98G cells exposed to 6-h oxygen–glucose deprivation followed by 3, 6, and 9 h of reoxygenation, respectively. Therefore, raloxifene improved cell survival and mitochondrial membrane potential and reduced lipid peroxidation and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, suggesting a direct effect on mitochondria. In this study, raloxifene protected oxygen–glucose-deprived astrocyte cells, used to mimic hypoxic–ischemic brain injury. Two examiners performed the qualitative assessment in a double-blind fashion.
Read full abstract