The ketone metabolite β-hydroxybutyrate (βOHB), is reported to be neuroprotective after spinal cord injury (SCI) in rats, but the underlying mechanism remains unknown. The present study aims to investigate effects of βOHB on suppression of oxidative stress and inhibition of class I histone deacetylases (HDACs) in in vivo and in vitro models. Rats were fed with ketogenic diet (KD) or standard diet (SD) for 3 weeks. A C5 hemi-contusion injury was applied to these animals on the 14th day of experiment, and spinal cord samples were harvested on the 1st, 3rd and 7th days after SCI, respectively. The blood ketone levels were significantly higher in the KD groups. KD reduced oxidative stress markers and reactive oxygen species (ROS) products, downregulated the expression of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase (NOX)2 and NOX4, and upregulated the expression of forkhead box group O (FOXO)3a, mitochondrial superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), and catalase after SCI. The in vitro study, performed on PC12 cells, indicated that βOHB inhibited HO-induced ROS production, decreased NOX2 and NOX4 protein levels, and upregulated FOXO3a, MnSOD, and catalase levels in a dose-dependent manner, which was consistent with the in vivo results. The ketone metabolite βOHB inhibited HDAC1, HDAC2, and HDAC3 activity, but not HDAC8 in SCI rats and PC12 cells. Depletion of HDAC1 or HDAC2 with small interfering RNA (siRNA) attenuated HO-induced ROS production and protein carbonylation and elevated FOXO3a protein levels, meanwhile reducing NOX2 and NOX4 protein expression in PC12 cells. Our results indicate that the ketone metabolite βOHB attenuates oxidative stress in SCI by inhibition of class I HDACs, and selected suppression of HDAC1 or HDAC2 regulates FOXO3a, NOX2, and NOX4 expression. Therefore, the ketone metabolite βOHB may be a novel promising therapeutic agent for SCI.

Study design: This is a review article. Objectives: This study discusses the following: (1) concepts and constraints for the determination of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (2) the contrasts between MCID and minimal detectable difference (MDD), (3) MCID within the different domains of International Classification of Functioning, disability and health, (4) the roles of clinical investigators and clinical participants in defining MCID and (5) the implementation of MCID in acute versus chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) studies. Methods: The methods include narrative reviews of SCI outcomes, a 2-day meeting of the authors and statistical methods of analysis representing MDD. Results: The data from SCI study outcomes are dependent on many elements, including the following: the level and severity of SCI, the heterogeneity within each study cohort, the therapeutic target, the nature of the therapy, any confounding influences or comorbidities, the assessment times relative to the date of injury, the outcome measurement instrument and the clinical end-point threshold used to determine a treatment effect. Even if statistically significant differences can be established, this finding does not guarantee that the experimental therapeutic provides a person living with SCI an improved capacity for functional independence and/or an increased quality of life. The MDD statistical concept describes the smallest real change in the specified outcome, beyond measurement error, and it should not be confused with the minimum threshold for demonstrating a clinical benefit or MCID. Unfortunately, MCID and MDD are not uncomplicated estimations; nevertheless, any MCID should exceed the expected MDD plus any probable spontaneous recovery. Conclusion: Estimation of an MCID for SCI remains elusive. In the interim, if the target of a therapeutic is the injured spinal cord, it is most desirable that any improvement in neurological status be correlated with a functional (meaningful) benefit.