†These authors contributed equally.
According to the recent findings, autophagy modulation is being a potential
therapeutic target in the management of ischemic stroke in a pre-clinical
setting. However, the pros and cons of autophagic response strongly depend on the
activation time of autophagy after injury. In this systematic review, we aimed to
explore the impacts of pharmacological modulation of autophagy on infarct size in
experimental ischemic stroke models. Based on our preliminary search, 3551
publications were identified. Of twenty-nine publications that met the inclusion
criteria, twenty studies reported infarct volume reduction by percentage (%)
with no evidence of any publication bias while nine studies reported by mm
Ischemic stroke (IS), one of the devastating disorders, is the intended second leading cause of mortality and disability followed by vascular occlusion and irreversible damage of the brain tissue [1, 2]. Despite the rising aged population, the incidence of stroke is expected to grow thereby a demand to accede a novel and more effective therapeutic approach is increasing, particularly for patients suffering from acute cerebral ischemia [3, 4]. It has been proved that long-lasting autophagy besides a variety of other neurologic conditions plays a crucial role in cerebral ischemic injury. However, growing pieces of evidence demonstrated that autophagy has the potential to exert controversial effects (either detrimental or beneficial) in cerebral IS [5]. In better words, regulated and moderate autophagy may provide a neuroprotection effect while an excessive or inappropriate activation of autophagy could trigger deleterious effects to develop cell death [6, 7]. Autophagy, a catabolic-conserved process through the breakdown and subsequent recycling of cellular constituents, is an essential physiological intracellular process for maintaining cellular homeostasis and simultaneously participates in bio-energetic procedures under various stress conditions [8]. This phenomenon is highly regulated by numerous molecules such as microtubule-associated protein 1A light chain 3 (LC3), Beclin-1, and P62 (a scaffold protein) that have a necessary role in the regulation of the autophagy signaling pathway [9]. Of note, the excessive activation of autophagy and related effectors in neural cells have been firmly established in a variety of focal ischemic stroke models such as experimental middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). Moreover, recent evidence demonstrated that the over-activity of neuronal autophagy through persistent stress, such as cerebral ischemia, results in cell damage, especially in the border area of lesion sites [10, 11]. Therefore, autophagy regulation could be considered a potential target for IS treatment [12]. In contrast, it has also been reported that pre-activation of autophagy in the brain tissue could enhance brain ischemic tolerance, facilitate cellular energy production, and prevent neuronal apoptosis during subsequent exposure to the ischemic conditions [13]. For instance, rapamycin, as a well-known autophagy inducer has a palliative effect on pre-clinical IS damage through the activation of mitophagy, suggesting that autophagy has a beneficial effect on ischemia/reperfusion injury.Although there is no debate regarding autophagy participation in cerebral ischemia, the accurate function of autophagy in IS remains controversial. In hence, the main purpose of this systematic review refers to uncover a total pattern of infarct volume evolution after autophagy modulation quantitatively via meta-analysis in the experimental models of stroke.
For the primary systematic search strategy, Embase, Medline (via PubMed, Ovid) databases were used. Notably, all considered studies were published in English and the inception date of each database was qualified for inclusion in this review (from 1980-Jan till 2021-May). In addition, the search strategy aimed to explore both published and unpublished studies with the combination of Mesh and free keywords such as autophagy, macroautophagy, cerebrovascular accident, ischemic stroke, and autophagy biomarkers. A complete search strategy in the PubMed database is brought in the supplementary material (Appendix Table 3).
This quantitative study was deliberated to include all studies calculated
infarct size following the assessment of autophagy detrimental and/or protective
effects as the primary outcome in the IS model of rodents who underwent
experimental transient/prominent ischemia induced by MCAO as well as focal
cerebral ischemia. There was not any exclusion based on the route of drug
administration, divergent medications used for anesthesia, and the duration of
treatment. The full text of selected studies that did not meet the inclusion
criteria such as clinical trials, in vitro experiments, non-English
written articles, the published conference abstracts, and the articles without
standard quality, such as not mentioned quantitative changes in case of the
infarct size with percentage or mm
To retrieve quantitative article selection, two reviewers (AR and NV)
independently screened the relevant titles and abstracts. After eligible articles
inclusion, to determine the risk of bias, the full-texts of all included articles
were also precisely screened by two reviewers (AR and NV), independently.
Meanwhile, any discrepancies were arbitrated by a third reviewer (FS). Endnote X9
as a reference management software (Thomson Corporation Inc., USA) was used to
organize titles and abstracts of studies as well as duplicated identification. It
should be noted that corresponding authors of primary studies were contacted for
any missing or clarifying unclear data, where required. Finally, required data
extraction from the articles was summarized in the extraction diagrams (Table 1,
Ref. [10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] and Table 2, Ref. [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]) and intended study design items
including first author’s name, year of publication, study location, type of
animals (species, sex), sample size, name of therapeutic agents, related-dose,
route of administration, experimental model of ischemic stroke, and infarct size
alternation (% or mm
Publication | Year | Country | Species & Gender | Sample size (n) | (Dose, route of delivery) | Time course of autophagy assessment (h) | Levels of LC3 after Treatment | Temp/Perm | Infarct (mm |
Outcome (autophagy effect) |
Li J et al. [14] | 2015 | China | Female SD rats | 5 | 17- AAG (80 mg/kg), i.p. | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 96.7 |
Cell death |
Li W-L et al. [15] | 2013 | USA | Male wild-type (B6, 129PF2) and p50 knockout (p50, B6, 129P-Nfkb1) mice | 5 | NF-kB | 12, 24 | Decreased | Perm | –9.4 |
Cell death |
Li H et al. [16] | 2015 | China | Male SD rats | 3 | 002C-3 (10 g/kg), i.v. | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 100 |
Cell death |
Li H et al. [16] | 2015 | China | Male SD rats | 3 | 002C-3 (50 g/kg), i.v. | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 154.7 |
Cell death |
Shu S et al. [17] | 2016 | China | Male SD rats | 15 | EA 24 h | 6, 24, 72 | Decreased | Temp | 18.2 |
Cell death |
Shu S et al. [17] | 2016 | China | Male SD rats | 15 | EA72 h | 6, 24, 72 | Decreased | Temp | 16.4 |
Cell death |
Feng D et al. [10] | 2016 | China-USA | Male C57BL/6 mice | KN | Mel (10 mg/kg), i.p. | 6, 12, 24 | Decreased | Temp | 21.00 |
Cell death |
Liu N et al. [18] | 2011 | Japan | Male C57BL/6 mice | 5 | Edaravone A, 9 mg/kg i.v. | 48 | Decreased | Temp | 23.7 |
Cell death |
Liu N et al. [18] | 2011 | Japan | Male C57BL/6 mice | 5 | Edaravone B, 9 mg/kg i.v. | 48 | Decreased | Temp | 25.3 |
Cell death |
Liu Y.Y. et al. [19] | 2017 | China | Male SD rats | 4 | PF11 (6, mg/kg), i.v. | 24 | Decreased | Perm | 7.6 |
Cell death |
Liu Y.Y. et al. [19] | 2017 | China | Male SD rats | 4 | PF11 (6, mg/kg), i.v. | 24 | Decreased | Perm | 7.88 |
Cell death |
Jiang Zh et al. [20] | 2015 | China and USA | Male SD rats | 5 | MB, 1 mg/kg, i.p. | 24 | - | Temp | 36.00 |
Protective |
Shen PP et al. [21] | 2016 | China and USA | Male Wistar rats | 5 | CSD Preconditioning | 6, 12, 24 | Increased | Temp | 10.62 |
Protective |
17-AGG, 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin; CSD, Cortical Spreading
Depression; MB, Methylene blue; Mel, Melatonin; NF- |
Authors | Year | Country | Species & Gender | Sample size (n) | Dose & route of delivery of therapeutic agents | Time course of autophagy assessment (h) | Level of LC3 after Treatment | Temp/Perm | Infarct size reduction (%) | Outcome (autophagy effect) |
Li Q et al. [22] | 2014 | China | Male wild-type ICR mice | 16–20 | Rap 8 ng/2 micro DMSO 0.1%, i.c.v. | 6, 24, 48, and 72 | Increased | Perm | 11.86 |
Protective |
Bu Q et al. [23] | 2014 | China | MaleWild-type ICR mice + SD rats | 10 | w007B10 mg/kg, i.v. | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 16.8 |
Cell death |
Bu Q et al. [23] | 2014 | China | MaleWild-type ICR mice + SD rats | 10 | w007B 50 mg/kg, i.v. | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 35.7 |
Cell death |
Fu L et al. [24] | 2016 | China | Male Balb/c mice | 6 | CC (20 mg/kg), i.p. | 24 | Increased | Perm | 22.43 |
Cell death |
Li Y et al. [25] | 2015 | China | Male SD rats | 12 | Ebselen, gavage | 14 day | Decreased | Temp | 18.2 |
Cell death |
Chi O.Z. et al. [26] | 2016 | USA | Male Fischer Rat | 8 | Rap, 20 mg/kg, i.p. | 48 | Decreased | Temp | 16.4 |
Cell death |
Lu T et al. [27] | 2011 | China | Male SD rats | 3 | GRb1, 1.25 mg/kg intra nasal | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 23.14 |
Cell death |
Lu T et al. [27] | 2011 | China | Male SD rats | 3 | GRb1, 12.5 mg/kg intra nasal | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 29.81 |
Cell death |
Wu M et al. [28] | 2017 | China | Male SD rats | 6 | Pre- Rap (3.0 mg/kg.), i.p. | 24 h, 7 days | Increased | Temp | 12.6 |
Protective |
Wu M et al. [28] | 2017 | China | Male SD rats | 6 | Post-Rap (3.0 mg/kg.), i.p. | 24 h, 7 days | Increased | Temp | 8.3 |
Protective |
Qi Zh et al. [29] | 2012 | China | Male SD rats | 4 | IPOC 10 | 24 | Increased | Temp | 22.00 |
Protective |
Qi Zh et al. [29] | 2012 | China | Male SD rats | 4 | IPOC 30 | 24 | Increased | Temp | 18.00 |
Protective |
Qi Zh et al. [30] | 2015 | China and USA | Male SD rats | 4 | RIC | 24 | Increased | Perm | 10.62 |
Protective |
Wang R et al. [31] | 2014 | China | Male Wistar rats | 6 | Res 30 mg/kg, i.p. | 24 | Increased | Temp | 9.29 |
Protective |
Jeong J.H. et al. [32] | 2016 | Korea | Male SD rats | 5 | IF | 24 | Increased | Temp | 38.64 |
Protective |
Li L et al. [33] | 2017 | China and USA | Male SD rats | 6 | GM1 25 mg/kg, i.p. | 24 | Decreased | Perm/Temp | 6.8 |
Cell death |
Li L et al. [33] | 2017 | China and USA | Male SD rats | 6 | GM1 50 mg/kg, i.p. | 24 | Decreased | Perm/Temp | 1.6 |
Cell death |
Lu K.M. et al. [34] | 2019 | China | Male SD rats | 3 | HBO | 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 | Decreased | Perm | 5.7 |
Cell death |
Li G et al. [35] | 2012 | China | Male Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats | 5 | IPOC | 24 | Decreased | Temp | 17.48 |
Cell death |
Qi Zh E et al. [36] | 2014 | China and USA | Male SD rats | 3–4 | HSYA (2 mg/kg), i.v. | 24, 48, and 72 | Increased | Temp | 10.62 |
Protective |
Chen et al. [37] | 2020 | China | Male ICR Mice | 6 | TAT-SPK2 (1 mg/kg/day), i.p. | 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 | Increased | Temp | 49.7 |
Protective |
Chen et al. [37] | 2020 | China | Male ICR Mice | 6 | TAT-SPK2 (2 mg/kg/day), i.p. | 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 | Increased | Temp | 41.9 |
Protective |
Chen et al. [37] | 2020 | China | Male ICR Mice | 6 | TAT-SPK2 (4 mg/kg/day), i.p. | 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 | Increased | Temp | 34.2 |
Protective |
Li et al. [38] | 2020 | USA | Male C57/BL6J mice | 6 | 28% (2.8 g/kg/d) Ethanol, Gavage | 24 | Decreased | Temp | –20% | Protective |
Pan et al. [39] | 2020 | China | Male Sprague-Dawley rats | 16 and 32 | Treadmill | 3 and 7 days | Decreases | Temp | 20.72 |
Cell death |
Wang et al. [40] | 2020 | China | Male C57/BL6J mice | 8 | STS, 10 mg/kg, i.p. | 1 and 3 | Decreases | Temp | 29.81 |
Cell death |
Wang et al. [40] | 2020 | China | Male C57/BL6J mice | 8 | STS, 20 mg/kg, i.p. | 1 and 3 | Decreases | Temp | 22.71 |
Cell death |
Wang et al. [40] | 2020 | China | Male C57/BL6J mice | 8 | STS, 40 mg/kg, i.p. | 1 and 3 | Decreases | Temp | 21.59 |
Cell death |
Wang et al. [41] | 2021 | China | Male Sprague-Dawley rats | 6 | HBO 100% oxygen and 1.5 atmosphere absolute pressure | 72 | Decreases | Temp | 20.12 |
Cell death |
CC, C compound; EA, Electroacupuncture; GM,1 Ganglioside; HBO, Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy; HSYA, Hydroxysafflor yellow A; IPOC, Ischemic Post conditioning; Mel, Melatonin; Rap, Rapamycin; Res, Resveratrol; STS, Sodium tanshinone IIA sulfonate; TAT-SPK2, Sphingosine Kinase 2-mimicking TAT-peptide. |
The numbers of animals and average stroke volume (mean
Following the systemic search using the database, 3551 articles were identified. 2363 duplicated and 933 irrelevant articles were excluded after a preliminary evaluation of the articles according to the title and abstract. Following the full-text assessment for article eligibility, of a total number of 256, 227 articles were also excluded. Ultimately, 29 articles supporting the inclusion criteria were included in the current meta-analysis. The relevant flow chart of determined and included articles was outlined in Appendix Fig. 5. According to the obtained data from the included articles, the animals were assigned to the control group without any intervention, the stroke group induced by permanent/transient MAOC manner, and treatment groups received autophagy modulators.
In 13 studies, the mean of stroke volume has been calculated while the
heterogeneity between included studies was significant (Q-value = 59.83, df = 12,
p
Effect of autophagy process on stroke volume based on mm
The relevant publication bias for the funnel plot has been shown in Fig. 2. According to the consequence of the stroke volume mean difference, egger’s regression test revealed that publication bias was practically significant between studied groups (t-value = 3.24, df = 11, p-value = 0.007). Moreover, the Trim and Fill method was performed for publication bias modifying, which added one study for missed study modulation. The results of this analysis also showed that the adjusted pooled mean difference for stroke volume between the two groups was 39.25 units (AMD = 41.92, 95% CI = 30.33 to 53.51).
Funnel plot of publication bias between studied groups calculated by egger’s regression test. Pooled mean difference (CI: 95%).
According to the results shown in Fig. 1, studies conducted by Li J et
al. [14], and Li H et al. [16], could be considered as a source of
heterogeneity among studies. Thereby, the sensitivity analysis was performed
regardless of these studies. Based on the results of sensitivity analysis, it has
been clarified that pooled mean difference for stroke volume between stroke and
treatment groups was 15.09 (MD = 15.09, 95% CI: 10.12 to 20.04, z-value = 5.95,
p-value
Based on the percentage of the infarct volume mean, which has been reported in
29 studies, the heterogeneity between the studies was also statistically
significant (Q-value = 4830.82, df = 28, p
Effect of autophagy modulation on stroke volume based on percentage (%). (A) Forest panel analysis according to included studies and represented by mean differences and 95% CIs, following the search strategy till 2021, (B) Subgroups analysis according to the cell death/protective role of the autophagy represented by mean differences and 95% CIs, showing that the autophagy process mainly involves in the stroke volume progression and subsequently promotes the cell death.
Publication bias assessment of the mean differences of the stroke volume has been shown in the funnel plot (Fig. 4). According to egger’s regression test, there was no significant publication bias between different groups (t-value = 1.96, df = 27, p = 0.06).
Funnel plot of publication bias between studied groups calculated by egger’s regression test. Pooled mean difference (CI: 95%).
To the best of our knowledge, IS, as a more common type of stroke and a
devastating disease, is mainly characterized by the major lack of regional
cerebral blood supply in a distinct area of the cerebral tissue [42]. IS could be
defined as one of the major leading causes of a corresponding loss of neurologic
function, particularly in the aging population [43, 44]. Besides the dysregulated
autophagy, it has been also documented that other pathological conditions such as
mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, acidosis, calcium overload, and
inflammatory response are associated with the pathogenesis of cerebral
ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) [45]. The current systematic review and
meta-analysis aimed to clarify autophagy modulation (either inhibition or
induction) and its possible effects on the histological and infracted volume
restoration in animal models of ischemic stroke. As mentioned earlier,
the basal level of autophagy is considered as an obligatory factor for neuronal
normal activity while autophagy dysregulation promotes neurodegeneration, as well
as misfolded protein aggregation [46]. Moreover, mounting evidence highlighted
the causal role of autophagy activity during IS [47, 48, 49]. In detail, recent
publications indicated that following the acute and severe IS, autophagic
subtypes including mitophagy, pexophagy, lipophagy, and endoplasmic reticulophagy
are predominantly involved in IS progression [50]. To further establish this
finding, using transmission electron microscopy represented the increased amount
of autophagosomes, named bilayer-membrane autophagic vacuoles, in the damaged
ischemic neurons, which further highlighted the autophagy involvement in cerebral
pathology induced by IS [51]. In this line, our results pointed out that
autophagy efficacy predominately emerges in a time course between 6–72 h in
terms of both cell protection and cell death status. Meanwhile, other variables
such as gender, different anesthetic drugs used, route of administration, and
different procedures for stroke induction had no significant bearing on autophagy
consequences. Even so, the clinical application of autophagy modulators in
diagnosed stroke patients is still restricted due to the plenty of contradictory
studies. Given the limited studies conducted in this era, it could be assumed
that there is a high risk of bias and suggesting further pre-clinical studies to
confirm the exact role of autophagy in terms of the stroke volume modification
with considering time-dependent effectiveness; However, to further establish of
these findings, a comprehensive estimation of 29 studies, in which determined the
infarct size using either percentage (%) or ischemic area measurement (mm
Regarding the latent underlying mechanisms of action involved in autophagy regulation, Zhang et al. [58] indicated that chloride channel-3, as a signal molecule, exerted a neuroprotective role, which can directly activate autophagy machinery through the interaction between Beclin1 and Vps34 in a self-protective manner to impede infarct volume progression following acute IS (AIS), in vivo. In contrast, it has been reported that FK506 binding protein 5 (FKBP5), as a novel prognostic and diagnostic value, is upregulated in subjects with AIS and participates in disease severity. FKBP5 by autophagy induction through the downstream AKT/FOXO3 blocking could promote AIS exacerbation [59]. Another target signaling pathway to suppress dysregulated autophagy refers to the AKT/mTOR axis stimuli as well as autophagy-related gene 7 (Atg 7) downregulation emerging by dichloromethane therapy against IS in rats [60]. Notably, the results of a recent study conducted by Cai et al. [61] also showed that one of the substantial mechanisms involved in the neuroprotective role of tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA), a well-known thrombolytic medication in the clinical treatment of cerebral IRI, e.g., IS, is mainly related to the activation of FUN14 domain-containing 1 (FUNDC1)-mediated mitophagy to retrieve mitochondrial dysfunction following the AMPK phosphorylation and subsequent apoptotic cell reduction. Previously, it has been reported that the elevated level of inflammatory mediators, such as annexin A1 and monomeric C-reactive protein, can worsen the prognosis of the post-ischemic aged brain, in vivo [62, 63]. Interestingly, a cross-talk between autophagy and inflammation has also been delineated, which corroborated the benefits of moderate autophagy in facing post-stroke inflammatory response through the mTOR/AMPK pathway and subsequent inflammasome inhibitions [64]. Collectively, beyond the existing conventional therapies, novel therapeutic approaches such as hypothermia-induced infarct size reduction and autophagy modulation are of great significance, recently [50, 62]. Even so, as a limitation of the current study, the possible effect of some critical risk factors including aging, co-morbidities, and raised inflammatory mediators should be considered in upcoming studies, as well.
Given the conflict effects of autophagy regarding the infarct volume reduction, the studies included in this meta-analysis mostly reported a negative relation between autophagy induction and stroke volume development due to excessive autophagy activity following severe IS; in hence, it seems that further studies are also required to explore the underlying mechanisms to clarify the exact intervention role of autophagy modulation during cerebral ischemia for translating the potential therapeutic target in stroke patients.
AIS, Acute Ischemic stroke; CI, confidence intervals; CMA, Comprehensive Meta-analysis; FKBP5, FK506 binding protein 5; IS, Ischemic stroke; IRI, ischemia-reperfusion injury; LC3, microtubule-associated protein 1A light chain 3; MCAO, middle cerebral artery occlusion; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; SD, standard deviation.
AR—Designed the study; NV and FS—Performed search strategy; HH—Performed the methodological analysis; RR—Revised the final draft; YS—Contributed to writing the manuscript; SS—Interpreted the analyzed Data.
The ethic number approved by Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for this study is IR.TBZMED.REC.1398.294.
Not applicable.
This review was supported by the Aging Research Institute of the Tabriz University of Medical Science with code number: 62827.
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Search | Query | Items found |
#15 | Search ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((“Biomarkers”[Mesh]) OR Biologic Markers[Title]) OR Biologic Markers[Title/Abstract]) OR Serum Marker[Title]) OR Serum Marker[Title/Abstract]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title/Abstract]))) OR LC3II[Title/Abstract]) OR LC3I[Title/Abstract]) OR P62[Title/Abstract]) OR Beclin-1[Title/Abstract])) OR ‘sequestosome 1’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘sqstm1 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘protein sqstm1’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘protein p 62’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘protein p62’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘sequestosome-1 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ubiquitin binding protein p62’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘beclin 1’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘atg6 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘becn1 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘vps30 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘coiled coil myosin like bcl2 interacting protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR (‘protein atg6’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘protein becn1’[Title/Abstract])) OR (‘protein vps30’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘protein beclin 1’[Title/Abstract])) OR ‘protein beclin1’[Title/Abstract]))) | 707143 |
#14 | Search (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((“Biomarkers”[Mesh]) OR Biologic Markers[Title]) OR Biologic Markers[Title/Abstract]) OR Serum Marker[Title]) OR Serum Marker[Title/Abstract]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title/Abstract]))) OR LC3II[Title/Abstract]) OR LC3I[Title/Abstract]) OR P62[Title/Abstract]) OR Beclin-1[Title/Abstract])) OR ‘sequestosome 1’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘sqstm1 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘protein sqstm1’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘protein p 62’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘protein p62’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘sequestosome-1 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ubiquitin binding protein p62’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘beclin 1’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘atg6 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘becn1 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘vps30 protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘coiled coil myosin like bcl2 interacting protein’[Title/Abstract]) OR (‘protein atg6’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘protein becn1’[Title/Abstract])) OR (‘protein vps30’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘protein beclin 1’[Title/Abstract])) OR ‘protein beclin1’[Title/Abstract])) AND (((((((((((“Autophagy”[Mesh]) OR Autophag*[Title]) OR Autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Macro autophag*[Title]) OR Macro autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[MeSH Terms]))) AND (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((‘cerebrovascular accident’[MeSH Subheading]) OR CVA[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘accident, cerebrovascular’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute cerebrovascular lesion’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute focal cerebral vasculopathy’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘apoplectic stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR apoplex*[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘blood flow disturbance, brain’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain blood flow disturbance’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain insultus’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain ischaemic attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain ischemic attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral apoplexia’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral vascular insufficiency’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebro vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular arrest’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular failure’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular injury’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular insufficiency’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrum vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cryptogenic stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischaemic cerebral attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischaemic seizure’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischemic cerebral attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischemic seizure’[Title/Abstract]) OR stroke[Title/Abstract]) | 68 |
#11 | Search ((((((((((((“Biomarkers”[Mesh]) OR Biologic Markers[Title]) OR Biologic Markers[Title/Abstract]) OR Serum Marker[Title]) OR Serum Marker[Title/Abstract]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title/Abstract]))) OR LC3II[Title/Abstract]) OR LC3I[Title/Abstract]) OR P62[Title/Abstract]) OR Beclin-1[Title/Abstract] | 694084 |
#9 | Search ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((‘cerebrovascular accident’[MeSH Subheading]) OR CVA[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘accident, cerebrovascular’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute cerebrovascular lesion’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute focal cerebral vasculopathy’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘apoplectic stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR apoplex*[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘blood flow disturbance, brain’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain blood flow disturbance’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain insultus’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain ischaemic attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain ischemic attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral apoplexia’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral vascular insufficiency’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebro vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular arrest’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular failure’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular injury’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular insufficiency’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrum vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cryptogenic stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischaemic cerebral attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischaemic seizure’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischemic cerebral attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischemic seizure’[Title/Abstract]) OR stroke[Title/Abstract])) AND (((((((((((“Autophagy”[Mesh]) OR Autophag*[Title]) OR Autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Macro autophag*[Title]) OR Macro autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[MeSH Terms])) | 241 |
#6 | Search ((((((((((((“Autophagy”[Mesh]) OR Autophag*[Title]) OR Autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Macro autophag*[Title]) OR Macro autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[MeSH Terms]))) OR ((((((((“Biomarkers”[Mesh]) OR Biologic Markers[Title]) OR Biologic Markers[Title/Abstract]) OR Serum Marker[Title]) OR Serum Marker[Title/Abstract]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title/Abstract])) | 716305 |
#4 | Search ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((‘cerebrovascular accident’[MeSH Subheading]) OR CVA[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘accident, cerebrovascular’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute cerebrovascular lesion’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute focal cerebral vasculopathy’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘acute stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘apoplectic stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR apoplex*[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘blood flow disturbance, brain’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain blood flow disturbance’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain insultus’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain ischaemic attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain ischemic attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘brain vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral apoplexia’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebral vascular insufficiency’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebro vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular arrest’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular failure’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular injury’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular insufficiency’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrovascular insult’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cerebrum vascular accident’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘cryptogenic stroke’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischaemic cerebral attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischaemic seizure’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischemic cerebral attack’[Title/Abstract]) OR ‘ischemic seizure’[Title/Abstract]) OR stroke[Title/Abstract] | 224635 |
#3 | Search (((((((“Biomarkers”[Mesh]) OR Biologic Markers[Title]) OR Biologic Markers[Title/Abstract]) OR Serum Marker[Title]) OR Serum Marker[Title/Abstract]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title]) OR Endpoints, Surrogate[Title/Abstract]) | 685950 |
#2 | Search (((((((((((((“Stroke”[Mesh]) OR Stroke[Title]) OR Stroke[Title/Abstract]) OR Cerebrovascular Disorders[Title]) OR Cerebrovascular Disorders[Title/Abstract]) OR Cerebrovascular Accident[Title]) OR Cerebrovascular Accident[Title/Abstract]) OR CVA[Title]) OR CVA[Title/Abstract]) OR Cerebrovascular Apoplexy[Title]) OR Cerebrovascular Apoplexy[Title/Abstract]) OR Cerebral Stroke[Title]) OR Cerebral Stroke[Title/Abstract]) | 260013 |
#1 | Search ((((((((((“Autophagy”[Mesh]) OR Autophag*[Title]) OR Autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Macro autophag*[Title]) OR Macro autophag*[Title/Abstract]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title]) OR Autophag* Cellular[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[Title/Abstract]) OR Programmed Cell Death, Type II[MeSH Terms]) | 31781 |
Search and selection process of systematic review.