A Interleucina 1-beta mostra uma ação protetora na fase aguda do modelo de epilepsia induzido pela pilocarpina / The il1β have a protective action in the acute phase of the pilocarpine-induced epilepsy model

INTRODUÇÃO: Existem contradições na literatura quanto aos efeitos dos genes il1β e il1rn nas epilepsias. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar os efeitos do silenciamento desses dois genes na fase aguda do modelo de epilepsia induzido pela pilocarpina. MÉTODOS: Para alterar a expressão dos genes il1β e il1rn utilizamos a técnica de interferência por RNA. RESULTADOS: Obtivemos taxas de silenciamento significativas para os dois genes no sistema nervoso central. Observamos efeitos fenotípicos significativos, incluindo a alteração na taxa de mortalidade dos animais 5 dias após a indução do modelo. CONCLUSÕES: A il1β parece exercer um papel protetor na fase aguda do modelo de epilepsia induzido pela pilocarpina.

INTRODUCTION: There is contradictory information regarding the of effects il1β and il1rn in epilepsy. We aimed to evaluate the effect of silencing both genes in the acute phase of the pilocarpine-induced epilepsy model. METHODS: We used RNA interference in order to achieve gene silencing. RESULTS: We obtained significant gene silencing in the central nervous system. In addition, we observed phenotypic effects including differences in mortality rates of animals 5 days after pilocarpine injections. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that il1β seems to have a protective effect in the acute phase of the pilocarpine-induced epilepsy model.

Assessment of the progressive nature of cell damage in the pilocarpine model of epilepsy

Pilocarpine-induced (320 mg/kg, ip) status epilepticus (SE) in adult (2-3 months) male Wistar rats results in extensive neuronal damage in limbic structures. Here we investigated whether the induction of a second SE (N = 6) would generate damage and cell loss similar to that seen after a first SE (N = 9). Counts of silver-stained (indicative of cell damage) cells, using the Gallyas argyrophil III method, revealed a markedly lower neuronal injury in animals submitted to re-induction of SE compared to rats exposed to a single episode of pilocarpine-induced SE. This effect could be explained as follows: 1) the first SE removes the vulnerable cells, leaving behind resistant cells that are not affected by the second SE; 2) the first SE confers increased resistance to the remaining cells, analogous to the process of ischemic tolerance. Counting of Nissl-stained cells was performed to differentiate between these alternative mechanisms. Our data indicate that different neuronal populations react differently to SE induction. For some brain areas most, if not all, of the vulnerable cells are lost after an initial insult leaving only relatively resistant cells and little space for further damage or cell loss. For some other brain areas, in contrast, our data support the hypothesis that surviving cells might be modified by the initial insult which would confer a sort of excitotoxic tolerance. As a consequence of both mechanisms, subsequent insults after an initial insult result in very little damage regardless of their intensity.