Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jan 12;21(1):e0339455. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339455

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in alleviating cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury via the BMP6/Smad-hepcidin pathway

Lan-Zhao Wang 1, Ji-Hong Zhang 2, Ji-Min Shi 2, Xiu-Ju Li 3,*
Editor: Stephen D Ginsberg4
PMCID: PMC12795386  PMID: 41525272

Abstract

Cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury (CCI) is a cause of neurological damage. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) can improve recovery in CCI in relation to iron metabolism and ferroptosis, but the precise mechanisms remain unclear. This study aims to explore the neuroprotective effects of HBOT in CCI and its regulator of iron homeostasis via BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling pathway. Male Wistar rats were divided into Control (CT), Ischemia-Reperfusion (GM), Ischemia-Reperfusion + Normobaric Hyperoxia (NH), and Ischemia-Reperfusion + HBOT (HO) groups. The CCI model was induced by four-vessel occlusion. HBOT was administered at 2.5 ATA for 120 minutes daily for 5 days. Neurological function was assessed using the modified neurological severity score, light-dark box, and Morris Water Maze test. Histopathological analysis, transmission electron microscopy, Nissl and TUNEL staining, oxidative stress markers, Western blotting and qPCR were used to assess neuronal damage, mitochondrial integrity, necrosis, apoptosis, oxidative stress, iron metabolism and BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin mRNA expression and protein concentrations. HBOT significantly improved neurological function, reduced neuronal damage, and preserved mitochondrial integrity compared to untreated animals. Oxidative stress markers, including malondialdehyde and antioxidant enzyme activities were significantly restored. HBOT also downregulated the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway, leading to decreased hepcidin levels. Western blot and qPCR analysis confirmed the suppression of ferroptosis-related markers in the HBOT group. HBOT significantly reduces neurological deficits, neuronal damage, and oxidative stress in CCI injury. Its neuroprotective effects are likely mediated by the regulation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway and the suppression of ferroptosis. These findings suggest that HBOT is a promising therapeutic strategy for treating CCI.

Introduction

Cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury (CCI) is one of the most critical reasons for severe neurological deficits. CCI leads to interrupted brain circulation, hypoxia and subsequent ischemic damage to brain tissue [1]. The complex pathophysiology of CCI includes mechanisms such as excitotoxicity, oxidative stress, calcium overload, and inflammation [2]. During ischemia, cellular damage is caused by the interruption of the brain’s energy supply, while reperfusion further exacerbates injury [3]. This process generates a large quantity of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which damage cell membranes, proteins, and DNA, triggering neuronal death. Additionally, activation of microglia and astrocytes promotes a pro-inflammatory environment that further contributes to neural damage [4]. These combined effects make CCI a significant challenge in clinical management.

Recent studies suggest that ferroptosis plays a critical role in CCI. Ferroptosis is a form of iron-dependent cell death, which is characterized by lipid peroxidation, ROS accumulation, and an over-reliance on iron metabolism. Ferroptosis leads to cellular damage distinct from other forms of cell death such as apoptosis and necrosis [5]. Previous studies showed that the excessive accumulation of ROS leads to the breakdown of cell membranes and ferroptosis [6]. Furthermore, iron dysregulation has been linked to the initiation of ferroptosis in CCI, which highlights the importance of targeting iron metabolism in therapeutic interventions [7]. The BMP6/Smad signaling pathway is a key regulator of iron homeostasis, which has been identified as a potential modulator of ferroptosis [8]. The BMP6/Smad pathway controls the expression of hepcidin, which regulates iron levels by inhibiting iron absorption and promoting iron sequestration in tissues [9].

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach to mitigate the damage caused by CCI. Previous studies have demonstrated that early administration of HBOT significantly enhances neurological recovery and reduces long-term brain damage [10]. HBOT works by increasing oxygen delivery to hypoxic tissues, promoting cellular repair mechanisms, and reducing oxidative stress [11]. A previous study showed that HBOT improves CCI in rats via inhibition of ferroptosis [12]. However, the precise mechanisms by which HBOT alleviates CCI remains unclear.

We hypothesized that HBOT may exert its effect by modulating the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway. By regulating this pathway, HBOT could potentially stabilize iron metabolism, limit ROS production, and prevent lipid peroxidation, then protect brain cells from ferroptosis. Thus, this study aims to explore the protective mechanisms of HBOT in CCI, with a specific focus on its modulation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling pathway.

Materials and methods

Ethical considerations

All procedures were approved by the Laboratory Animal Welfare & Ethics Committee (2024-A041-01) and were conducted in accordance with the guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

Animals

Male Wistar rats, weighing between 250–280 g, were obtained from Shanghai Slac Laboratory Animal Company. The animals were housed in a temperature-controlled room (22 ± 2°C) under a 12-hour light/dark cycle with unrestricted access to food and water. Prior to experimentation, the rats were allowed a one-week acclimatization period to minimize stress.

Experimental groups

The rats were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups (n = 9 per group), namely Control Group (CT): The rats were anesthetized and subjected to sham surgeries without occlusion of the arteries. Global CCI Model Group (GM): The rats underwent the CCI procedure without any treatment. CCI + HBOT Group (HO): These animals underwent the CCI procedure followed by daily HBOT. CCI + Normobaric Hyperoxia Group (NH): These rats underwent the CCI procedure followed by daily Normobaric Hyperoxia.

Global Cerebral ischemia-reperfusion model

Four-vessel occlusion (4VO) model was employed to induce CCI. Rats were anesthetized using 2–3% isoflurane and placed in the supine position. A midline incision was made in the neck to expose the bilateral common carotid arteries (CCAs) and vertebral arteries. Permanent occlusion of the vertebral arteries was performed using electrocautery through a small dorsal incision at the level of the first cervical vertebra. The bilateral CCAs were then temporarily occluded using microvascular clamps for 30 minutes, inducing cerebral ischemia. Reperfusion was initiated by removing the clamps after the ischemic period. The success of ischemia was confirmed by the following criteria: loss of consciousness, dilated pupils, absence of corneal reflex, and lack of the righting reflex. Reperfusion lasted for 24 hours, after which the animals received therapeutic interventions based on their group assignments.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy

The treatment started at 24 h after reperfusion. HBOT was administered in a hyperbaric chamber capable of maintaining a pressure of 2.5 atmospheres absolute (ATA). Rats in the HO group were placed in the chamber with the pressure gradually increased over a 25-minute period to 2.5 ATA. The animals were exposed to 100% oxygen for 70 minutes at this pressure, followed by a gradual depressurization phase lasting 25 minutes. HBOT was administered once daily for five consecutive days. In contrast, rats in the NH group were treated with 100% oxygen at atmospheric pressure (1 ATA) following the same time schedule.

Neurological assessment

All the neurological assessment started on the 6th day after reperfusion using the modified neurological severity score (mNSS), light-dark box test (LDB) and Morris Water Maze (MWM). The mNSS scale ranges from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating more severe neurological deficits. Rats were scored by two independent observers blinded to the treatment groups to reduce observer bias. When the results were different, consistent opinions were adopted.

The light-dark box experiment system consisted of a light-dark box (45 cm × 27 cm × 27 cm), an electrical stimulation controller, a computer, and a behavioral analysis system. The top of the dark box was covered, and the bottom of the dark box was equipped with a copper grid that can conduct electricity. The light box had a lighting device, and there was a partition wall between the light and dark boxes. The partition wall had an opening (7.5 cm × 7.5 cm) through which the test rat could move between the two boxes. In the training phase, the rat was placed in the light box. After 10 seconds, the door between the light and dark boxes was opened. Due to the rat’s natural tendency to move toward the dark, they would quickly enter the dark box. Once the rat fully entered the dark box, the door between the two boxes was closed, and a 0.5 mA electrical stimulation was applied for 2 seconds. A test phase was performed on the next day. The rat was placed in the light box again, and the door between the light and dark boxes was opened. The number of transitions between the light and dark compartments reflects the animal’s exploratory activity, where lower transition counts indicate higher anxiety levels. A normal exploratory range is typically 5–15 transitions within a 5-minute period, while ≤ 3 transitions indicate a pronounced anxiety phenotype. The duration of time spent in the dark compartment and the latency to first enter the dark zone provide additional measures of anxiety-like behavior.

The MWM was consisted of a circular water tank with a diameter of 1.6 meters and a height of 50 cm, a submerged platform with a diameter of 10 cm and 1 cm below the water surface, and a video tracking system. Four equally spaced points (east, south, west, and north) were marked on the walls of the tank as entry points. The water temperature was maintained at 25 ± 1°C. A training phase was started at 8 AM each day, the rats were placed into the water from the four different entry points with positioned facing the tank wall. The video tracking system recorded the rat’s movement trajectory and the time taken to reach the platform. When the rat found and climbed onto the platform, it was allowed to rest for 30 seconds before the next trial. If the rat failed to find the platform within 60 seconds, the experimenter gently guided the rat to the platform with a stick and allowed it to rest on the platform for 30 seconds. The trial time was recorded as 60 seconds. Each rat underwent four training trials per day with a 30-minute interval between each trial, for a total of four days. A test phase was performed on the 5th day with the platform removed from the maze. The rat was placed at the midpoint of the wall opposite the platform’s original location. The time it took for the rat to first enter the quadrant where the platform was located, as well as the amount of time the rat spent in that quadrant was recorded. The total test time was 60 seconds.

Histopathological analysis

After the completion of behavioral and neurological assessments, rats were euthanized. Euthanasia was performed via intravenous injection of potassium chloride (KCl, 1–2 mg/kg, 2M solution) administered through the tail vein, and their brains were removed. The brains were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then sectioned coronally at a thickness of 6 µm. Sections from the hippocampal CA1 region were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E).

Nissl staining was used to assess neuronal damage, determine neuron viability, and evaluate tissue necrosis. After deparaffinization and rehydration through graded alcohols, the sections were immersed in a solution of cresyl violet or toluidine blue (0.1–0.5%) for approximately 5–10 minutes. The sections were then briefly rinsed in distilled water before undergoing differentiation in 95% ethanol containing a few drops of acetic acid until the background appeared clear. Finally, the tissue sections were dehydrated through graded alcohols, cleared in xylene, and mounted.

TUNEL staining was used to detect DNA fragmentation associated with apoptotic cells. After deparaffinization and rehydration, the tissue sections were permeabilized with Proteinase K (10–20 μg/mL) for 15–30 minutes at room temperature. Then they were incubated in a TUNEL reaction mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and fluorescein-dUTP for 60 minutes at 37°C in a humidified chamber. For light microscopy visualization, the fluorescent signal was converted using an anti-fluorescein antibody conjugated with peroxidase and DAB substrate. After counterstaining with methyl green or hematoxylin, the sections are dehydrated, cleared, and mounted.

Transmission electron microscopy

Samples of hippocampal tissue were prepared for transmission electron microscopy. Small pieces of the hippocampus (1–3 mm³) were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde followed by post-fixation in 0.5% osmium tetroxide. The samples were then dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol and embedded in Spurr resin. Ultra-thin sections (70 nm) were cut and stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. The sections were examined under a ThermoFisher Talos 120 transmission electron microscope. Mitochondrial morphology was evaluated, including changes in membrane integrity, cristae structure, and the presence of mitochondrial swelling.

Measurement of oxidative stress and iron metabolism markers.

Blood samples were collected from the left ventricle immediately after euthanasia. Serum levels of oxidative stress markers, including malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), were measured using commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits. Additionally, hepcidin and ferroportin (FPN1) were quantified to assess the impact of CCI and HBOT on iron homeostasis.

Quantitative analysis of histological and ultrastructural data

Quantitative assessments were performed to objectively evaluate neuronal and mitochondrial integrity. Neuronal density in the hippocampal CA1 region was quantified by counting intact neurons in three randomly selected high-power fields (400×) per section per animal. The number of TUNEL-positive cells was quantified in three randomly selected fields (400×) per section per animal. Mitochondrial morphometry was quantified by measuring the average mitochondrial cross-sectional area and cristae integrity

Western blot analysis

Hippocampal tissue was homogenized in ice-cold RIPA buffer supplemented with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. Protein concentrations were determined using the Bradford assay, and equal amounts of protein (30 µg per sample) were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE and transferred to PVDF membranes. Membranes were blocked with 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies against BMP6, Smad1/2, phospho-Smad1/2, ferroportin (FPN1), and GAPDH (loading control). After washing, membranes were incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies. Protein bands were visualized using enhanced chemiluminescence, and densitometric analysis was performed using ImageJ software to quantify protein expression levels.

RNA extraction and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) of ferroportin

Total RNA was extracted by using the RNA-QuickPurification Kit (ES Science, Shanghai, China). PCR was performed using BeyoFast™ SYBR Green qPCR Mix (2X, Low ROX) kit (Beyotime, Shanghai, China). The threshold cycle(Ct) was determined using the QuantStudio3 (Applied Biosystems, USA). The condition for PCR amplification was initial denaturation at 95 ℃ for 2 min followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 95 ℃ for 10 sec and annealing/extension at 60 ℃ for 30 sec. β-actin was used as an internal control for gene expression. Detailed methods and the PCR primer sequences are listed in Supplementary Methods (S1 File).

Statistical analysis

Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analysis was performed using R (4.4.2, https://www.r-project.org/). After conducting a normal distribution test, comparisons between groups were made using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons. If data did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallistest was used. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Neurological assessment

For mNSS test, the rats in the GM group (CCI rats) displayed significant neurological deficits compared to controls (CT group, p < 0.001). Rats treated with HBOT (HO group) showed significantly improved neurological function (p < 0.001 compared to GM). The group treated with Normobaric Hyperoxia (NH) also demonstrated improved neurological outcomes (p < 0.001 compared to GM), but the effect was less significant than in the HO group (p < 0.001).

For the LDB test, the rats in the GM group displayed a significant decrease in the number of entries into the dark box compared to the CT group (p < 0.001), indicating severe anxiety-like behavior. Both HO group and NH group exhibited a significant increase in the times compared to the GM group (both p < 0.001). However, the HO group entered the dark box significantly more times than the NH group (p = 0.018). The latency in the HO group and NH group was significantly shorter compared to the GM group (both p < 0.001), and there was a significant difference between the HO group and CT group (p < 0.001) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on neurological function of light-dark box (LDB) and Morris water maze (MWM) test.

Fig 1

(A) Number of transitions in the LDB test. (B) Latency time in the LDB test. (C) Percentage of time spent in the target quadrant during MWM test. (D) Latency to find the platform in the MWM test. NH, ischemia-reperfusion model and normobaric hyperoxia group; CT, control group; HO, ischemia-reperfusion model and hyperbaric oxygen therapy group; GM, ischemia-reperfusion model group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. CT group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 vs. GM group; Δp < 0.05, ΔΔp < 0.01, ΔΔΔp < 0.001 vs. NH group.

For the MWM test, the rats in the GM group displayed significantly less time spent in the platform’s quadrant compared to the CT group (p < 0.001), indicating impaired learning and memory. Compared to the GM group, the HO and NH groups showed significantly increased time spent in the platform’s quadrant (p = 0.027 and p < 0.001), but the HO group spent significantly more time than the NH group (p < 0.001). The rats in the GM group displayed a significant increase in latency compared to the CT group (p < 0.001). The latency in the HO and NH groups was significantly lower than that in the GM group (p = 0.007 and p < 0.05), but the HO group had a significantly shorter latency than the NH group (p < 0.001) (Fig 1).

Histopathological analysis

The histopathological analysis is shown in Fig 2. H&E staining showed significant neuronal damage in the hippocampal CA1 region of the GM group. The neurons displayed shrunken cell bodies, hyperchromatic nuclei, and vacuolization of the surrounding tissue. In contrast, the HO group exhibited significantly less neuronal damage, with a greater number of intact neurons and reduced vacuolization. The NH group also showed some protective effects, with moderate preservation of neuronal structures compared to the GM group.

Fig 2. Histopathological, ultrastructural, nissl, and TUNEL changes in the hippocampal CA1 region of rats after global cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Fig 2

Representative images showing alterations in the hippocampal CA1 region of rats from different experimental groups: Control (CT, panels A, E, I, M), Ischemia-Reperfusion (GM, panels B, F, J, N), Ischemia-Reperfusion + Normobaric Hyperoxia (NH, panels C, G, K, O), and Ischemia-Reperfusion + Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HO, panels D, H, L, P). A-D: H&E staining showing histopathological changes (Magnification: 400 × ; Scale bar: 400 μm). (A) Control group displays normal cellular architecture with intact pyramidal neurons. (B) Ischemia-reperfusion group exhibits marked neuronal loss and pyknotic nuclei. (C) Normobaric Hyperoxia shows moderate improvement compared to the ischemia group. (D) HBOT treatment demonstrates notable neuroprotection with preserved cellular morphology. E-H: Transmission electron microscopy of CA1 neurons (Magnification: 10,000 × ; Scale bar: 500 nm). (E) Control neurons show normal ultrastructure with intact organelles. (F) Ischemia-reperfusion causes severe mitochondrial swelling, endoplasmic reticulum dilation, and nuclear condensation. (G) Normobaric Hyperoxia shows intermediate ultrastructural preservation. (H) HBOT-treated samples display reduced ultrastructural damage with relatively preserved mitochondria. I-L: Nissl staining for neuronal survival assessment (Magnification: 400 × ; Scale bar: 100 μm). (I) Control section shows abundant Nissl bodies in neuronal cytoplasm. (J) Ischemia-reperfusion leads to significant loss of Nissl substance. (K) Normobaric Hyperoxia shows partial preservation of Nissl substance. (L) HBOT treatment preserves Nissl bodies, indicating improved neuronal viability. M-P: TUNEL assay for apoptosis detection (Magnification: 400 × ; Scale bar: 50 μm). (M) Control tissue shows minimal TUNEL-positive neurons. (N) Ischemia-reperfusion results in extensive TUNEL-positive neurons, indicating widespread apoptosis. (O) Normobaric Hyperoxia moderately decreases apoptotic neuron death compared to the ischemia group. (P) HBOT treatment significantly reduces TUNEL-positive neurons.

Nissl staining revealed that the neurons exhibited substantially reduced Nissl substance, pyknotic nuclei, and decreased neuronal density with irregular cellular arrangements in the hippocampal CA1 region of the GM group. In contrast, the HO group demonstrated markedly preserved neuronal integrity, with abundant Nissl substance in the cytoplasm, well-defined cell boundaries, and organized cellular architecture. The NH group also showed moderate neuroprotective effects compared to the GM group, though some neurons still displayed chromatolysis and structural alterations.

TUNEL staining demonstrated extensive DNA fragmentation in the hippocampal CA1 region of the GM group. The apoptotic cells were characterized by condensed chromatin and fragmented nuclei with strong TUNEL-positive neurons. In contrast, the HO group exhibited significantly reduced TUNEL-positive neurons, with only scattered apoptotic neurons observed. The NH group also showed moderate protective effects against apoptosis, with an intermediate number of TUNEL-positive neurons compared to the GM group.

Ultrastructural changes in mitochondria

The TEM analysis is shown in Fig 2. Results revealed severe mitochondrial damage in the GM group, characterized by mitochondrial shrinkage, disrupted cristae, and increased membrane density. In the HO group, the structural integrity of mitochondria was notably preserved, with fewer signs of damage such as membrane rupture or cristae loss. The NH group displayed partial protection of mitochondrial structures, but the damage was not significant than the HO group.

Oxidative stress and iron metabolism markers.

The GM group exhibited significantly elevated levels of MDA compared to the CT group (p < 0.001). In contrast, the HO group showed significantly reduced MDA levels compared to the GM group (p < 0.001). The NH group also demonstrated reduced MDA levels compared to the GM group, but the reduction was not significant. SOD and GSH-Px levels were significantly lower in the GM group compared to the CT group (both p < 0.001). HBOT (p < 0.001 for SOD and p < 0.001 for GSH-Px) and Normobaric Hyperoxia treatment (p = 0.052 for SOD and p = 0.023 for GSH-Px) significantly restored these enzyme levels compared to the GM group, while Normobaric Hyperoxia showed moderate restoration.

The GM group showed significantly elevated serum hepcidin levels compared to the CT group (p < 0.001). The HO group showed significantly lower hepcidin levels (p = 0.040) compared to the GM group, while the NH group (p = 0.038) showed a moderate decrease.

The neuronal density in the hippocampal CA1 region was significantly reduced in the GM group compared with the CT group (p < 0.001). Both the NH and HO groups exhibited increased neuronal density compared to the GM group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), with HO showing the greatest preservation. Similarly, the percentage of TUNEL-positive cells was markedly higher in the GM group than in the CT group (p < 0.001), while HO significantly reduced apoptotic neuron counts (p < 0.001). Mitochondrial morphometric analysis revealed that mitochondrial area and cristae integrity were severely compromised after ischemia-reperfusion but substantially restored in HBOT-treated animals (p < 0.001 vs. GM).

Hepcidin mRNA expression

Quantitative PCR analysis showed a significant upregulation of hepcidin mRNA in the GM group (Fig 3). The HO group treated with HBOT displayed significantly higher hepcidin mRNA levels. The NH group also showed reduced hepcidin mRNA expression compared to the GM group, but the effect was less significant than in the HO group.

Fig 3. Effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on biochemical parameters in global cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Fig 3

(A and B) Serum hepcidin protein and mRNA levels measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR), respectively. (C) Malondialdehyde (MDA) concentrations. (D) Glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity. (E) Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. CT group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 vs. GM group; Δp < 0.05, ΔΔp < 0.01, ΔΔΔp < 0.001 vs. CA group.

Quantitative PCR analysis revealed that hepcidin mRNA expression was markedly elevated in the GM group compared to the control (CT) group (p < 0.001). HBOT (GA group) significantly reduced hepcidin mRNA levels relative to the GM group (p < 0.01), whereas the NBHO (formerly CA) group showed a moderate but non-significant reduction (Fig 3A-B). These results indicate that HBOT downregulates hepcidin expression following cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Western blot analysis

In the GM group, a marked increase in BMP6, phospho-Smad1/2, hepcidin and ferroportin expression was shown (Fig 4 and Fig 5). HBOT treatment significantly reduced the expression of BMP6 and phospho-Smad1/2, which was accompanied by decreased expression of hepcidin and ferroportin. The NH group showed partial regulation of these proteins, with less effects compared to the HO group.

Fig 4. Western blot analysis of protein expression levels in hippocampal tissues across different experimental groups (n = 4 for each group).

Fig 4

(A) Western blot images showing protein bands for Smad1 (52 kDa), Smad2 (52 kDa), phosphorylated Smad1 (P-Smad1, 60 kDa), phosphorylated Smad2 (P-Smad2, 60 kDa), Ferroportin/SLC40A1 (62 kDa), and β-actin (42 kDa, loading control). B-F: Quantification of protein expression of (B) Smad1, (C) Smad2, (D) Ferroprotein (SLC40A1), (E) P-Smad1, and (F) P-Smad2. The protein expression levels are normalized to β-actin and presented as folds of control. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. CT group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 vs. GM group; Δp < 0.05, ΔΔp < 0.01, ΔΔΔp < 0.001 vs. CA group.

Fig 5. Western blot analysis of protein expression levels in hippocampal tissues of rats across different experimental groups (n = 4 for each group).

Fig 5

(A) Western blot images showing protein bands for Hepcidin (16 kDa), Glutathione Peroxidase 4 (GPX4, 22 kDa), Bone Morphogenetic Protein 6 (BMP6, 42 kDa), and GAPDH (36 kDa, loading control). B-D: Densitometric quantification of protein expression of (B) Hepcidin, (C) GPX4, and (D) BMP6. The protein expression levels are normalized to GAPDH and presented as folds of control. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. CT group; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 vs. GM group; Δp < 0.05, ΔΔp < 0.01, ΔΔΔp < 0.001 vs. CA group.

Discussion

The present study investigated the neuroprotective effects of HBOT on CCI rats, focusing on its ability to modulate the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway and reduce ferroptosis. The findings demonstrate that HBOT significantly improves neurological function, preserves neuronal and mitochondrial integrity, reduces oxidative stress, and regulates iron metabolism. These results provide new insights into the mechanisms underlying the neuroprotective effects of HBOT, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic strategy for CCI.

CCI usually leads to severe neurological deficits due to disrupted cerebral blood flow and subsequent neuronal death. The improvement in neurological function seen in HBOT-treated animals is consistent with earlier reports. Studies demonstrated that HBOT enhances oxygen delivery to hypoxic brain tissue, promoting cellular recovery and improving neurological outcomes [13]. Our results further confirm the beneficial role of HBOT in reducing neurological deficits caused by cerebral ischemia. Mitochondria are highly susceptible to ischemic damage [14]. Previous studies showed that CCI induced cognitive impairment via hippocampal CA1 region damage and the ultrastructural changes objectively in this region after hypoxia [15,16]. Histological analysis revealed that HBOT significantly reduced neuronal damage in the hippocampal CA1 region. The preservation of neuronal structure in HBOT-treated rats aligns with findings from other studies that reported reduced neuronal apoptosis following HBOT [17]. The results revealed that HBOT preserved mitochondrial integrity, reducing the extent of mitochondrial swelling and cristae disruption.

Previous studies suggested that oxidative stress plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CCI, and mitigating oxidative damage is crucial for improving outcomes [18]. In this study, HBOT significantly reduced serum levels of MDA, a marker of lipid peroxidation, while restoring antioxidant enzyme activities (SOD and GSH-Px). This is consistent with previous reports showing that HBOT increases tissue oxygenation and enhances antioxidant defenses, thus reducing oxidative stress and preventing further damage [19]. The reduction in oxidative stress markers in the HBOT-treated group likely contributes to the observed neuroprotection [20]. Our data show HBOT downregulates BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin, lowers hepcidin, restores ferroportin, and mitigates iron-related oxidative damage. Hepcidin-ferroportin controls intracellular iron, influencing Fenton chemistry, lipoxygenase activity, and GSH/GPX4 defenses. HBOT thus reduces pro-ferroptotic iron, preserves export, lowers MDA, and increases GPX4 expression, forming a multi-layered neuroprotection. These associations are consistent with prior work.

The regulation of iron metabolism is increasingly recognized as an important factor in CCI due to its role in ferroptosis, a form of iron-dependent cell death [21]. Our study demonstrated that CCI upregulated the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway, leading to elevated hepcidin levels and iron overload and then to ferroptosis. However, HBOT significantly downregulated BMP6/Smad pathway, reduced hepcidin expression and restored ferroportin levels. This suggests that HBOT helps mitigate iron overload and suppress ferroptosis. These findings are consistent with studies that have linked the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway to the regulation of iron metabolism. By regulating iron homeostasis, BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway limits iron-mediated oxidative damage via complementing antioxidative strategies like GSH and GPX4 enhancement [22]. BMP/Smad signaling shows anti-inflammatory effects by suppressing NF-κB activation [23]. Additionally, BMPs can activate a pro-regenerative transcription program in neurons through the Smad-mediated canonical pathway during axon regeneration [24]. The multifaceted nature of BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling makes it valuable for addressing the complex pathophysiology of CCI. Our findings indicate that HBOT may offer neuroprotection by modulating the BMP6/Smad pathway involved in ferroptosis. Our findings appear to contrast with the canonical role of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway, which under physiological conditions limits systemic iron availability and thereby reduces ferroptosis. However, during cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury, the pathway’s regulation becomes tissue- and context-dependent. In the injured brain, excessive activation of BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling may promote intracellular iron retention by suppressing ferroportin-mediated iron export from neurons and glial cells. This pathological accumulation of intracellular iron expands the labile iron pool and enhances lipid peroxidation, ultimately facilitating ferroptosis rather than inhibiting it. Recent studies showed that BMP6/Smad activation has been linked to inflammation and ferroptosis in ischemic stroke models [22]. Suppression of hepcidin signaling could improve neurological recovery [25]. Therefore, the downregulation of BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling by HBOT observed in our study may represent a protective normalization of dysregulated iron handling within neural tissue rather than a simple suppression of physiological iron control.

While our study demonstrates significant neuroprotective effects of HBOT, it is important to note that several limitations should be acknowledged for this study. First, the study was conducted on a small sample size of Wistar rats, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other species. Second, the study employed a specific protocol for HBOT (2.5 ATA for 120 minutes over five consecutive days), and it remains unclear whether varying the pressure, duration, or timing of therapy might yield different therapeutic results. Future studies should investigate the optimal HBOT parameters for maximal efficacy. Third, while the study focused on the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway, other molecular mechanisms, such as inflammation, autophagy, and apoptosis, were not fully explored. A more comprehensive analysis of these pathways would provide a better understanding of the multifaceted protective mechanisms of HBOT. Furthermore, we did not employ pharmacological or genetic manipulations such as BMP6 knockdown or ferrostatin-1 treatment to confirm causality. Future studies incorporating such interventions are needed to definitively establish the mechanistic role of this pathway in HBOT-mediated neuroprotection. In addition, the study was limited to short-term outcomes, and the long-term effects of HBOT on neurological recovery and overall brain function were not assessed. Future research should include longer follow-up periods to evaluate the sustainability of HBOT’s protective effects. Last, rodent brains differ markedly from humans in size, white/gray matter distribution, cerebrovascular anatomy, and metabolism, limiting direct extrapolation. Our global ischemia model does not fully capture human focal strokes, age/comorbidity effects, or clinical HBOT protocols. Future work should leverage larger animal models, aged/diabetic animals, varied HBOT parameters, longer follow-up, and early-phase clinical trials to bridge these gaps, while focusing on mechanistic biomarkers.

In conclusion, this study showed that HBOT significantly improves neurological function, reduces neuronal damage, and regulates iron metabolism in a rat model of CCI. The modulation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway and the suppression of ferroptosis were shown as the mechanisms underlying the neuroprotective effects of HBOT. These findings highlight the potential of HBOT as a therapeutic strategy for CCI and underscore the need for further clinical studies to explore its application in patients suffering from CCI.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplementary Methods.

(DOCX)

pone.0339455.s001.docx (15.5KB, docx)
S2 File. ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 – English.

(PDF)

pone.0339455.s002.pdf (245.7KB, pdf)
S1 Images. S1 raw images.

(PDF)

pone.0339455.s003.pdf (866.5KB, pdf)
S1 Data. Rawdata.

(ZIP)

pone.0339455.s004.zip (7.2MB, zip)

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from: https://github.com/jsyyky/BMP6-Smad-Hepcidin.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Jinshan Hospital (JYQN-JC-202207) and Jinshan District Science and Technology Commission (2023-WS-22) to investigator Lan-Zhao Wang.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sekhon MS, Ainslie PN, Griesdale DE. Clinical pathophysiology of hypoxic ischemic brain injury after cardiac arrest: a “two-hit” model. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1670-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang Q, Jia M, Wang Y, Wang Q, Wu J. Cell Death Mechanisms in Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury. Neurochem Res. 2022;47(12):3525–42. doi: 10.1007/s11064-022-03697-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim H-C, Kim E, Bae JI, Lee KH, Jeon Y-T, Hwang J-W, et al. Sevoflurane Postconditioning Reduces Apoptosis by Activating the JAK-STAT Pathway After Transient Global Cerebral Ischemia in Rats. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2017;29(1):37–45. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dixon SJ, Lemberg KM, Lamprecht MR, Skouta R, Zaitsev EM, Gleason CE, et al. Ferroptosis: an iron-dependent form of nonapoptotic cell death. Cell. 2012;149(5):1060–72. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jiang X, Stockwell BR, Conrad M. Ferroptosis: mechanisms, biology and role in disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021;22(4):266–82. doi: 10.1038/s41580-020-00324-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Park E, Chung SW. ROS-mediated autophagy increases intracellular iron levels and ferroptosis by ferritin and transferrin receptor regulation. Cell Death Dis. 2019;10(11):822. doi: 10.1038/s41419-019-2064-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Feng L, Yin X, Hua Q, Ren T, Ke J. Advancements in understanding the role of ferroptosis in hypoxia-associated brain injury: a narrative review. Transl Pediatr. 2024;13(6):963–75. doi: 10.21037/tp-24-47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fillebeen C, Wilkinson N, Charlebois E, Katsarou A, Wagner J, Pantopoulos K. Hepcidin-mediated hypoferremic response to acute inflammation requires a threshold of Bmp6/Hjv/Smad signaling. Blood. 2018;132(17):1829–41. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-03-841197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Katsarou A, Pantopoulos K. Hepcidin Therapeutics. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2018;11(4):127. doi: 10.3390/ph11040127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thiankhaw K, Chattipakorn N, Chattipakorn SC. The effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on the brain with middle cerebral artery occlusion. J Cell Physiol. 2021;236(3):1677–94. doi: 10.1002/jcp.29955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ortega MA, Fraile-Martinez O, García-Montero C, Callejón-Peláez E, Sáez MA, Álvarez-Mon MA, et al. A General Overview on the Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy: Applications, Mechanisms and Translational Opportunities. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(9):864. doi: 10.3390/medicina57090864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chen W, Zhou X, Meng M, Pan X, Huang L, Chen C. Hyperbaric oxygen improves cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats via inhibition of ferroptosis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2023;32(12):107395. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2023.107395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.He C, Huang D, Liu L. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy as a Renewed Hope for Ischemic Craniomaxillofacial Diseases. Healthcare (Basel). 2025;13(2):137. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13020137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Blomgren K, Zhu C, Hallin U, Hagberg H. Mitochondria and ischemic reperfusion damage in the adult and in the developing brain. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;304(3):551–9. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(03)00628-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li Y, Zhang Q, Wang X, Xu F, Niu J, Zhao J, et al. IL-17A deficiency alleviates cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury via activating ERK/MAPK pathway in hippocampal CA1 region. Brain Res Bull. 2024;208:110890. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2024.110890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tregub P, Motin Y, Kulikov V, Kovzelev P, Chaykovskaya A, Ibrahimli I. Ultrastructural Changes in Hippocampal Region CA1 Neurons After Exposure to Permissive Hypercapnia and/or Normobaric Hypoxia. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2023;43(8):4209–17. doi: 10.1007/s10571-023-01407-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Awad-Igbaria Y, Ferreira N, Keadan A, Sakas R, Edelman D, Shamir A, et al. HBO treatment enhances motor function and modulates pain development after sciatic nerve injury via protection the mitochondrial function. J Transl Med. 2023;21(1):545. doi: 10.1186/s12967-023-04414-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Luo Y, Cui H-X, Jia A, Jia S-S, Yuan K. The Protective Effect of the Total Flavonoids of Abelmoschus esculentus L. Flowers on Transient Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury Is due to Activation of the Nrf2-ARE Pathway. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018;2018:8987173. doi: 10.1155/2018/8987173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Batinac T, Batičić L, Kršek A, Knežević D, Marcucci E, Sotošek V, et al. Endothelial Dysfunction and Cardiovascular Disease: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy as an Emerging Therapeutic Modality?. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024;11(12):408. doi: 10.3390/jcdd11120408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Al-Waili NS, Butler GJ, Beale J, Abdullah MS, Hamilton RWB, Lee BY, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of patients with cerebral stroke, brain trauma, and neurologic disease. Adv Ther. 2005;22(6):659–78. doi: 10.1007/BF02849960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li M, Meng Z, Yu S, Li J, Wang Y, Yang W, et al. Baicalein ameliorates cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury by inhibiting ferroptosis via regulating GPX4/ACSL4/ACSL3 axis. Chem Biol Interact. 2022;366:110137. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liao J, Wei M, Wang J, Zeng J, Liu D, Du Q, et al. Naotaifang formula attenuates OGD/R-induced inflammation and ferroptosis by regulating microglial M1/M2 polarization through BMP6/SMADs signaling pathway. Biomed Pharmacother. 2023;167:115465. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wu X, Yung L-M, Cheng W-H, Yu PB, Babitt JL, Lin HY, et al. Hepcidin regulation by BMP signaling in macrophages is lipopolysaccharide dependent. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhong J, Zou H. BMP signaling in axon regeneration. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2014;27:127–34. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2014.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Davaanyam D, Lee H, Seol S-I, Oh S-A, Kim S-W, Lee J-K. HMGB1 induces hepcidin upregulation in astrocytes and causes an acute iron surge and subsequent ferroptosis in the postischemic brain. Exp Mol Med. 2023;55(11):2402–16. doi: 10.1038/s12276-023-01111-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stephen D Ginsberg

4 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Li,

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephen D. Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on methods of sacrifice, and efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study presents a potentially valuable contribution to understanding the neuroprotective effects of HBOT in cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury (CIRI), with a mechanistic focus on ferroptosis and the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling pathway. The experimental approach is comprehensive and employs multiple methods of analysis. However, there are several major issues that need to be addressed to improve the scientific rigor, clarity, and reproducibility of the work.

Major Points

The terminology used for the “CA” group, which receives 100% oxygen at 1 ATA, should be revised. This condition is more accurately described as normobaric hyperoxia (NBHO), not “pure oxygen therapy.” The authors are encouraged to adopt accurate terminology consistently and clearly explain how this group differs from both normoxia and HBOT in terms of expected physiological effects.

There is some confusion in the interpretation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling data. In one section, the authors state that HBOT reduces BMP6 and p-Smad but increases hepcidin, while in another section, HBOT is said to lower hepcidin levels. This apparent contradiction needs to be resolved, and the directionality of changes must be confirmed in both the figures and the text. More broadly, the mechanistic conclusions are based on correlative data. While the study identifies changes in ferroptosis-related markers and signaling proteins, there is no direct evidence for causality. If pharmacological or genetic manipulation of BMP6, hepcidin, or ferroptosis pathways (e.g., ferrostatin-1 treatment) was not performed, the authors should appropriately temper their mechanistic claims and explicitly acknowledge this limitation.

The histological and ultrastructural analyses are currently presented only in qualitative form. The authors should include quantitative data such as neuronal density, TUNEL-positive cell counts, or mitochondrial morphometric parameters. These would provide objective support for the narrative interpretations in the results section.

Minor Points

The manuscript requires extensive grammatical and stylistic revision. A professional English-language editing service is recommended.

Representative examples include: “All procedures were and approved” should be “were approved” (line 83); “The MWM was consisted by” should be “consisted of” (line 147); “Cellular damage is lead by” should be “is caused by” or “led by” (line 49); “Displayed significant significant decrease” should be revised to “a significant decrease” (line 238); “Spent significantly lower than” should be “had a significantly shorter latency than” (line 264); “HBOT may effect by modulating” should be rephrased as “HBOT may exert its effect by modulating” (line 76); “to to assess” contains a repeated word (line 169); “PCRwas” needs spacing (line 216); and “can be converted” should be “was converted” to match past tense in Methods (line 181). These and other tense, article, and punctuation errors appear throughout the manuscript and should be addressed.

In addition to language corrections, figures need improved labeling. In Fig. 3, for example, two panels are labeled “(C).” Recent relevant literature from 2023–2025 should be cited to situate the work in a current scientific context, especially regarding HBOT and ferroptosis in cerebral injury models.

In summary, while the study addresses a meaningful and novel therapeutic target in cerebral ischemia, the current version requires substantial revision to improve clarity, correct inconsistencies, and meet the methodological standards of the journal.

Reviewer #2: This study investigates the neuroprotective role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury, focusing on ferroptosis and the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling pathway. Overall, the study dealt with an important topic with potential clinical implications. The experimental design is generally clear, and the data is supportive. However, several points require clarification and revision to strengthen the manuscript.

1. The interpretation of the light-dark box experiment is flawed. The number of transitions (Transition) refers to the frequency of movement between light and dark zones, with a normal range of 5–15 times per 5 minutes. A value ≤3 indicates an anxiety phenotype, where lower numbers correspond to higher anxiety levels. Importantly, this metric shows no correlation with learning or memory functions. Theoretically, the GM group should exhibit lower Transition values, meaning they are more likely to remain in the dark zone without movement rather than having fewer entries. The experimental criteria and interpretations should be clearly defined here.

2.Figure 1 shows that the LDB number of times for the GM group is the highest, yet the results indicate the lowest. How can this be explained?

3. The explanation of behavioral science in the Results section is unclear.

4. Figure 3 should present results in chronological order.

5. The description of Hepcidin mRNA results contradicts the data: the GA group showed significant elevation, yet the Results section states significant reduction.

6. Figure 4 visually indicates that Smad1 band grayscale values in the GA group should be higher than the CA group, but statistical results show the opposite.

7. Traditionally, activation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway → increased Hepcidin → degradation of Ferroportin → decreased serum iron, which inhibits ferroptosis. However, in this study, the GM group was damaging, and the opposite conclusion was reached. Please explain this discrepancy.

8.The study focuses on the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway as a central mechanism for HBOT-mediated neuroprotection. Please expand the discussion to include how BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin modulation intersects with ferroptosis-related pathways.

9.The rationale for treatment onset (24 h post-reperfusion) and the number of treatment sessions should be justified more clearly. Early or delayed intervention timing could influence outcomes.

10.The manuscript states that HBOT "increased expression of hepcidin and ferroportin," but the earlier results section notes that HBOT downregulated hepcidin. This is inconsistent and needs correction.

11.Figures 2-5 require better labeling. Some panels are not clearly referenced in the text, and the legends lack sufficient methodological detail such as magnification for histology.

12.While limitations are mentioned, the discussion does not adequately address the translational gap between rodent models and human patients. HBOT delivery protocols and timing differ substantially between preclinical and clinical settings. Strengthen this section by discussing these translational challenges.

13.Abbreviations should be defined at first mention in both abstract and main text.

Reviewer #3: This study systematically investigates the neuroprotective effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) on Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury (CCI), with a commendable focus on the potential molecular mechanisms involving iron metabolism and ferroptosis. The authors have employed a multi-dimensional array of assessment metrics, and the dataset presented is substantial.

However, several critical issues concerning methodological rigor, the interpretation of results, and data presentation must be addressed.

These concerns are detailed below:

1. Association vs. Causality of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin Pathway: The authors demonstrate via Western Blot and qPCR that HBOT is associated with the downregulation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway. While intriguing, this evidence merely establishes an association, not a causal relationship. The manuscript lacks definitive intervention studies (e.g., using gene overexpression or silence/knockdown techniques) targeting key signaling molecules, such as BMP6 or Hepcidin, to confirm that this pathway is a primary mediator of HBOT's neuroprotective effects. The failure to acknowledge this significant methodological gap in the "Study Limitations" section is also a notable omission.

2. Critical Internal Contradiction in Results Reporting: A severe logical contradiction exists within the results, which fundamentally challenges the study's core conclusions. The Abstract and the qPCR data clearly indicate that HBOT downregulates hepcidin levels. However, in the "Western Blot Analysis" results section, the text explicitly states that following HBOT, the expression of both hepcidin and ferroportin (FPN1) was increased, concurrent with the reported decrease in BMP6 and p-Smad1/2. This is a major discrepancy. The authors must immediately reconcile this conflict.

3. Group Definition Errors in Figure 1 Legend: The legend for Figure 1 contains erroneous group definitions. Both the 'CA' group and 'GA' group are incorrectly defined as the "ischemia-reperfusion model and hyperbaric oxygen therapy group." The authors must correct these descriptions to accurately reflect the distinct conditions for each group.

4. Duplicated Subplot Labeling in Figure 3 Legend: In the legend for Figure 3, the subplot label (C) has been used twice. Please ensure all subplot labels follow a unique and correct sequential order.

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Jingxin Mo

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 12;21(1):e0339455. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339455.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Nov 2025

Reviewer #1:

The terminology used for the "CA" group, which receives 100% oxygen at 1 ATA, should be revised. This condition is more accurately described as normobaric hyperoxia (NBHO), not "pure oxygen therapy." The authors are encouraged to adopt accurate terminology consistently and clearly explain how this group differs from both normoxia and HBOT in terms of expected physiological effects.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We agree that "normobaric hyperoxia" is a more accurate and widely accepted term than "pure oxygen therapy." Accordingly, we have revised the terminology throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency.

There is some confusion in the interpretation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin signaling data. In one section, the authors state that HBOT reduces BMP6 and p-Smad but increases hepcidin, while in another section, HBOT is said to lower hepcidin levels. This apparent contradiction needs to be resolved, and the directionality of changes must be confirmed in both the figures and the text. More broadly, the mechanistic conclusions are based on correlative data. While the study identifies changes in ferroptosis-related markers and signaling proteins, there is no direct evidence for causality. If pharmacological or genetic manipulation of BMP6, hepcidin, or ferroptosis pathways (e.g., ferrostatin-1 treatment) was not performed, the authors should appropriately temper their mechanistic claims and explicitly acknowledge this limitation.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We acknowledge that the previous version of the manuscript contained an inconsistency in describing the direction of hepcidin regulation. We confirm that HBOT reduced BMP6 and phospho-Smad1/2 expression, leading to decreased hepcidin levels compared to the ischemia-reperfusion (GM) group. We have now revised the relevant sections of the text to accurately reflect this finding and ensure consistency. We agree that our data are correlative and that causal relationships between HBOT and the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin/ferroptosis pathway cannot be conclusively established without pharmacological or genetic interventions. We have acknowledged this limitation in the Discussion section.

The histological and ultrastructural analyses are currently presented only in qualitative form. The authors should include quantitative data such as neuronal density, TUNEL-positive cell counts, or mitochondrial morphometric parameters. These would provide objective support for the narrative interpretations in the results section.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have now performed quantitative assessments to complement our qualitative observations.

Minor Points

The manuscript requires extensive grammatical and stylistic revision. A professional English-language editing service is recommended. Representative examples include: "All procedures were and approved" should be "were approved" (line 83); "The MWM was consisted by" should be "consisted of" (line 147); "Cellular damage is lead by" should be "is caused by" or "led by" (line 49); "Displayed significant significant decrease" should be revised to "a significant decrease" (line 238); "Spent significantly lower than" should be "had a significantly shorter latency than" (line 264); "HBOT may effect by modulating" should be rephrased as "HBOT may exert its effect by modulating" (line 76); "to to assess" contains a repeated word (line 169); "PCRwas" needs spacing (line 216); and "can be converted" should be "was converted" to match past tense in Methods (line 181). These and other tense, article, and punctuation errors appear throughout the manuscript and should be addressed.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have reviewed the entire text and corrected each spelling and grammatical error in it.

In addition to language corrections, figures need improved labeling. In Fig. 3, for example, two panels are labeled "(C)." Recent relevant literature from 2023-2025 should be cited to situate the work in a current scientific context, especially regarding HBOT and ferroptosis in cerebral injury models.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have corrected language issues and improved figure labeling (including Fig. 3, with all panels labeled in sequence). We also added and cited recent 2023-2025 literature to situate our work within the current context of HBOT and ferroptosis in cerebral injury models.

Reviewer #2:

1.The interpretation of the light-dark box experiment is flawed. The number of transitions (Transition) refers to the frequency of movement between light and dark zones, with a normal range of 5-15 times per 5 minutes. A value ≤3 indicates an anxiety phenotype, where lower numbers correspond to higher anxiety levels. Importantly, this metric shows no correlation with learning or memory functions. Theoretically, the GM group should exhibit lower Transition values, meaning they are more likely to remain in the dark zone without movement rather than having fewer entries. The experimental criteria and interpretations should be clearly defined here.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have clarified the behavioral meaning of the LDB parameters and corrected the interpretation of results to reflect that the global ischemia-reperfusion group exhibited reduced transitions, consistent with increased anxiety and reduced exploratory behavior.

2.Figure 1 shows that the LDB number of times for the GM group is the highest, yet the results indicate the lowest. How can this be explained?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We identified that the labeling of the Figure 1A and 1B was inverted due to a labeling error during figure preparation. We have now corrected Figure 1 to accurately reflect the results.

3.The explanation of behavioral science in the Results section is unclear.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have now revised the entire behavioral section to provide clear, behaviorally accurate interpretations of both the LDB and MWM tests.

4.Figure 3 should present results in chronological order.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have improved figure labeling in Fig. 3, with all panels labeled in sequence.

5.The description of Hepcidin mRNA results contradicts the data: the GA group showed significant elevation, yet the Results section states significant reduction.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have carefully reviewed the data and revised the text to accurately reflect the findings-the GA group showed a significant elevation of Hepcidin mRNA levels, not a reduction. The corrected description now aligns with the experimental results presented in the figure.

6.Figure 4 visually indicates that Smad1 band grayscale values in the GA group should be higher than the CA group, but statistical results show the opposite.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have double-checked both the raw Western blot data and the statistical analysis. The apparent visual difference between the GA and CA groups in the Smad1 bands may be due to slight variations in band background intensity and image contrast during figure preparation. However, all statistical analyses were performed using the original, unprocessed grayscale intensity values quantified with ImageJ. These values consistently indicated that Smad1 expression in the GA group was slightly lower than in the CA group, as shown in the bar graph. Therefore, the statistical results accurately reflect the quantitative data, and there is no error in our analysis.

7.Traditionally, activation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway → increased Hepcidin → degradation of Ferroportin → decreased serum iron, which inhibits ferroptosis. However, in this study, the GM group was damaging, and the opposite conclusion was reached. Please explain this discrepancy.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this important mechanistic point regarding the apparent contradiction between our results and the canonical BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway. We have revised in the Discussion section to reconcile our findings with established iron biology.

8.The study focuses on the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway as a central mechanism for HBOT-mediated neuroprotection. Please expand the discussion to include how BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin modulation intersects with ferroptosis-related pathways.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have expanded the discussion as suggested.

9.The rationale for treatment onset (24 h post-reperfusion) and the number of treatment sessions should be justified more clearly. Early or delayed intervention timing could influence outcomes.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. The 24-hour point stabilizes the acute reperfusion injury while targeting subacute inflammation and oxidative stress, during which ferroptosis and secondary neuronal damage evolve. Ferroptosis and iron dysregulation persist for days after cerebral ischemia, extending the therapeutic window beyond the hyperacute phase. Initiating HBOT within 0-6 hours risks increased oxidative stress; a 24-hour delay stabilizes cerebral hemodynamics and the blood-brain barrier. Many cerebral ischemia HBOT studies use initiation at 12-48 hours, showing efficacy in this subacute window. Five consecutive daily HBOT sessions were chosen because multiple sessions are needed for sustained neuroprotection and for practical feasibility, balancing benefit with reduced anesthesia exposure. Since ferroptosis and iron dysregulation persist for days after CCI, daily treatments target these ongoing mechanisms rather than a single acute event.

10.The manuscript states that HBOT "increased expression of hepcidin and ferroportin," but the earlier results section notes that HBOT downregulated hepcidin. This is inconsistent and needs correction.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We sincerely apologize for this confusion. The sentence in the Western Blot Analysis section that reads "HBOT treatment significantly reduced the expression of BMP6 and phospho-Smad1/2, which accompanied by increased expression of hepcidin and ferroportin" contains an error.The correct statement should be: "HBOT treatment significantly reduced the expression of BMP6 and phospho-Smad1/2, which was accompanied by decreased expression of hepcidin and ferroportin" We have now revised the relevant sections of the text to accurately reflect this finding and ensure consistency.

11.Figures 2-5 require better labeling. Some panels are not clearly referenced in the text, and the legends lack sufficient methodological detail such as magnification for histology.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have made improvements to Figures 2-5 as suggested.

12.While limitations are mentioned, the discussion does not adequately address the translational gap between rodent models and human patients. HBOT delivery protocols and timing differ substantially between preclinical and clinical settings. Strengthen this section by discussing these translational challenges.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have now substantially expanded the limitation section to include a dedicated paragraph addressing the translational challenges and differences between preclinical rodent models and human clinical settings.

13.Abbreviations should be defined at first mention in both abstract and main text.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have defined all abbreviations at first mention in both the abstract and the main text, and ensured consistency throughout.

Reviewer #3:

1.Association vs. Causality of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin Pathway: The authors demonstrate via Western Blot and qPCR that HBOT is associated with the downregulation of the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin pathway. While intriguing, this evidence merely establishes an association, not a causal relationship. The manuscript lacks definitive intervention studies (e.g., using gene overexpression or silence/knockdown techniques) targeting key signaling molecules, such as BMP6 or Hepcidin, to confirm that this pathway is a primary mediator of HBOT's neuroprotective effects. The failure to acknowledge this significant methodological gap in the "Study Limitations" section is also a notable omission.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We agree that our data are correlative and that causal relationships between HBOT and the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin/ferroptosis pathway cannot be conclusively established without pharmacological or genetic interventions. We have acknowledged this limitation in the Discussion section.

2.Critical Internal Contradiction in Results Reporting: A severe logical contradiction exists within the results, which fundamentally challenges the study's core conclusions. The Abstract and the qPCR data clearly indicate that HBOT downregulates hepcidin levels. However, in the "Western Blot Analysis" results section, the text explicitly states that following HBOT, the expression of both hepcidin and ferroportin (FPN1) was increased, concurrent with the reported decrease in BMP6 and p-Smad1/2. This is a major discrepancy. The authors must immediately reconcile this conflict.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We acknowledge that the previous version of the manuscript contained an inconsistency in describing the direction of hepcidin regulation. We confirm that HBOT reduced BMP6 and phospho-Smad1/2 expression, leading to decreased hepcidin levels compared to the ischemia-reperfusion (GM) group. We have now revised the relevant sections of the text to accurately reflect this finding and ensure consistency.

3.Group Definition Errors in Figure 1 Legend: The legend for Figure 1 contains erroneous group definitions. Both the 'CA' group and 'GA' group are incorrectly defined as the "ischemia-reperfusion model and hyperbaric oxygen therapy group." The authors must correct these descriptions to accurately reflect the distinct conditions for each group.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have updated the abraviations to reflect the corrected group names: substituting CA with NH (Ischemia-Reperfusion + Normobaric Hyperoxia) and GA with HO (Ischemia-Reperfusion + HBOT), so that each group now accurately represents its distinct condition. All related text has been revised accordingly.

4.Duplicated Subplot Labeling in Figure 3 Legend: In the legend for Figure 3, the subplot label (C) has been used twice. Please ensure all subplot labels follow a unique and correct sequential order.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have improved figure labeling in Fig. 3, with all panels labeled in sequence.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0339455.s006.docx (23.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Stephen D Ginsberg

9 Dec 2025

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Alleviating Cerebral Ischemia-reperfusion Injury via the BMP6/Smad-Hepcidin Pathway

PONE-D-25-23243R1

Dear Dr. Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stephen D. Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS One

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  jingxin Mo

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Stephen D Ginsberg

PONE-D-25-23243R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Li,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stephen D. Ginsberg

Section Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supplementary Methods.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0339455.s001.docx (15.5KB, docx)
    S2 File. ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 – English.

    (PDF)

    pone.0339455.s002.pdf (245.7KB, pdf)
    S1 Images. S1 raw images.

    (PDF)

    pone.0339455.s003.pdf (866.5KB, pdf)
    S1 Data. Rawdata.

    (ZIP)

    pone.0339455.s004.zip (7.2MB, zip)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0339455.s006.docx (23.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from: https://github.com/jsyyky/BMP6-Smad-Hepcidin.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES