As a crucial kind of pervasive gene, long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are abundant and key players in brain function as well as numerous neurological disorders, especially ischemic stroke. The mechanisms underlying ischemic stroke include angiogenesis, autophagy, apoptosis, cell death, and neuroinflammation. Inflammation plays a vital role in the pathological process of ischemic stroke, and systemic inflammation affects the patient's prognosis. Although a great deal of research has illustrated that various lncRNAs are closely relevant to regulate neuroinflammation and microglial activation in ischemic stroke, the specific interactional relationships and mechanisms between lncRNAs and neuroinflammation have not been described clearly. This review aimed to summarize the therapeutic effects and action mechanisms of lncRNAs on ischemia by regulating inflammation and microglial activation. In addition, we emphasize that lncRNAs have the potential to modulate inflammation by inhibiting and activating various signaling pathways, such as microRNAs, NF-κB and ERK.

Atherosclerosis is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease accounts for one-third of global deaths. However, the mechanism of atherosclerosis is not fully understood. It is well-known that the Rho GTPase family, especially Rho A, plays a vital role in the development and progression of arteriosclerosis. Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factors (Rho GEFs), which act upstream of Rho GTPases, are also involved in the atheromatous pathological process. Despite some research on the role of Rho GEFS in the regulation of atherosclerosis, the number of studies is small relative to studies on the essential function of Rho GEFs. Some studies have preliminarily revealed Rho GEF regulation of atherosclerosis by experiments in vivo and in vitro. Herein, we review the advances in research on the relationship and interaction between Rho GEFs and atheroma to provide a potential reference for further study of atherosclerosis.

Background: Protamine can decrease the risk of hemorrhage during carotid recanalization. However, it may cause severe side effects. There is no consensus on the safety and efficacy of protamine during surgery. Thus, we conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the differences between the protamine and the no-protamine group.Method: We systematically obtained literature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and PubMed electronic databases. All four databases were scanned from 1937 when protamine was first adopted as a heparin antagonist until February 2021. The reference lists of identified studies were manually checked to determine other eligible studies that qualify. The articles were included in this meta-analysis as long as they met the criteria of PICOS; conference or commentary articles, letters, case report or series, and animal observation were excluded from this study. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool are used to assess the risk of bias of each included observational study and RCT, respectively. Stata version 12.0 statistical software (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) was adopted as statistical software. When I2 < 50%, we consider that the data have no obvious heterogeneity, and we conduct a meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model. Otherwise, the random-effect model was performed.Result: A total of 11 studies, consisting of 94,618 participants, are included in this study. Our analysis found that the rate of wound hematoma had a significant difference among protamine and no-protamine patients (OR = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.093 to 0.774, p = 0.015). Furthermore, the incidence of hematoma requiring re-operation (0.7%) was significantly lower than that of patients without protamine (1.8%). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke, wound hematoma with hypertension, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), and death.Conclusion: Among included participants undergoing recanalization, the use of protamine is effective in reducing hematoma without increasing the risk of having other complications. Besides, more evidence-based performance is needed to supplement this opinion due to inherent limitations.

No abstract