AimThe complement cascade is activated and may play an important pathophysiologic role in brain injury after experimental intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, the exact mechanism of specific complement components has not been well studied. This study determined the role of complement C1q/C3-CR3 signaling in brain injury after ICH in mice. The effect of minocycline on C1q/C3-CR3 signaling-induced brain damage was also examined.MethodsThere were three parts to the study. First, the natural time course of C1q and CR3 expression was determined within 7 days after ICH. Second, mice had an ICH with CR3 agonists, LA-1 or vehicle. Behavioral score, neuronal cell death, hematoma volume, and oxidative stress response were assessed at 7 days after ICH. Third, the effect of minocycline on C1q/C3-CR3 signaling and brain damage was examined.ResultsThere were increased numbers of C1q-positive and CR3-positive cells after ICH. Almost all perihematomal C1q-positive and CR3-positive cells were microglia/macrophages. CR3 agonist LA-1 aggravated neurological dysfunction, neuronal cell death, and oxidative stress response on day 7 after ICH, as well as enhancing the expression of the CD163/HO-1 pathway and accelerating hematoma resolution. Minocycline treatment exerted neuroprotective effects on brain injury following ICH, partly due to the inhibition of C1q/C3-CR3 signaling, and that could be reversed by LA-1.ConclusionsThe complement C1q/C3-CR3 signaling is upregulated after ICH. The activation of C1q/C3-CR3 signaling by LA-1 aggravates brain injury following ICH. The neuroprotection of minocycline, at least partly, is involved with the repression of the C1q/C3-CR3 signaling pathway.

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is the most common subtype of hemorrhagic stroke. After ICH, blood components extravasate from vessels into the brain, activating immune cells and causing them to release a series of inflammatory mediators. Immune cells, together with inflammatory mediators, lead to neuroinflammation in the perihematomal region and the whole brain, and neuroinflammation is closely related to secondary brain injury as well as functional recovery of the brain. Despite recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology of ICH, there is still no effective treatment for this disease. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are non-coding RNAs 17–25 nucleotides in length that are generated naturally in the human body. They bind complementarily to messenger RNAs and suppress translation, thus regulating gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. They have been found to regulate the pathophysiological process of ICH, particularly the neuroinflammatory cascade. Multiple preclinical studies have shown that manipulating the expression and activity of miRNAs can modulate immune cell activities, influence neuroinflammatory responses, and ultimately affect neurological functions after ICH. This implicates the potentially crucial roles of miRNAs in post-ICH neuroinflammation and indicates the possibility of applying miRNA-based therapeutics for this disease. Thus, this review aims to address the pathophysiological roles and molecular underpinnings of miRNAs in the regulation of neuroinflammation after ICH. With a more sophisticated understanding of ICH and miRNAs, it is possible to translate these findings into new pharmacological therapies for ICH.

Objective: Alzheimer disease (AD) and cancer have been reported to be inversely correlated in incidence, but the mechanism remains elusive. Methods: A case-control study was conducted, based on the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) Research Plus data, to evaluate 12 factors in patients with cancer. Results: Severe pain was related to reduced AD risk, while older age at cancer diagnosis, female, longer survival years after tumor diagnosis, more benign/borderline tumors, less cancer-directed surgery, and more chemotherapy were associated with higher AD risk. In addition, patients of different races or with different cancer sites were associated with different risks of getting AD. Cases had a higher prevalence of severe pain than controls in all race and cancer site subgroups, except for in digestive cancer, where the result was the opposite. Conclusions: This study indicated pain as a novel protective factor for AD in patients with cancer. The mechanism behind it may provide new perspective on AD pathogenesis and AD-cancer association, which we discussed in our own hypothesis of the mechanism of pain action. In addition, digestive cancer pain had an opposite impact on AD risk from other cancer pains, which suggests the uniqueness of digestive system in interacting with the central nervous system.