Figures & data
Figure 1 (A) Schematic presentation of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles injection into an ICH mouse. (B) Experimental protocol and timeline.
![Figure 1 (A) Schematic presentation of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles injection into an ICH mouse. (B) Experimental protocol and timeline.](/cms/asset/f9249630-0f69-4e03-a33f-3e36436bf1c1/dijn_a_12192257_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2 Characterization of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles. (A) TEM image of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles, scale bar = 100 nm. (B) Particle sizes of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles detected by DLS.
![Figure 2 Characterization of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles. (A) TEM image of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles, scale bar = 100 nm. (B) Particle sizes of rosuvastatin-loaded nanomicelles detected by DLS.](/cms/asset/12349b8a-1b76-41b9-93a7-fd6005504d6c/dijn_a_12192257_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3 Cytotoxicity of the nanomicelles with different concentrations. The ratio of the sample absorbance to that of the blank control group presents the cell viability rate.
![Figure 3 Cytotoxicity of the nanomicelles with different concentrations. The ratio of the sample absorbance to that of the blank control group presents the cell viability rate.](/cms/asset/635fba2f-2ba2-4e9b-8ec9-c3bd638b0f3a/dijn_a_12192257_f0003_c.jpg)
Figure 4 Neurological deficits and brain edema. (A) Neurological deficit score after ICH. (B) Percentage of brain water content. Data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 6), *P < 0.05, **P<0.01, ***P < 0.001.
![Figure 4 Neurological deficits and brain edema. (A) Neurological deficit score after ICH. (B) Percentage of brain water content. Data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 6), *P < 0.05, **P<0.01, ***P < 0.001.](/cms/asset/6eb0dee1-acd0-4c69-bdea-eb88652e4ff9/dijn_a_12192257_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5 The FJC staining for degenerative neurons. (A) Representative images for FJC staining, scale bar = 50μm. (B) The statistical analysis of the FJC positive cells. Data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 4), *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.
![Figure 5 The FJC staining for degenerative neurons. (A) Representative images for FJC staining, scale bar = 50μm. (B) The statistical analysis of the FJC positive cells. Data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 4), *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.](/cms/asset/f0228a2f-bc9c-4001-9801-166246f81ab7/dijn_a_12192257_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6 H&E staining. The overall morphology of the brain section at different time-point. Magnified images shows the surrounding of the lesion. Scale bar = 100 μm.
![Figure 6 H&E staining. The overall morphology of the brain section at different time-point. Magnified images shows the surrounding of the lesion. Scale bar = 100 μm.](/cms/asset/b26ee1d2-e628-4e2b-89f5-ef5f0603c203/dijn_a_12192257_f0006_c.jpg)
Figure 7 The effects of nanomicelle on Microglia/macrophages polarization. (A) Immunofluorescence staining of iNOS+Iba-1+ around the hematoma border zone. (B) Western blot analysis of iNOS protein. (C) Immunofluorescence staining of Arg-1+Iba-1+ around the hematoma border zone. (D) Western blot analysis of iNOS protein. Scale bar =100μm. Data are mean ± SD, n = 6 mice per group, *P < 0.05, **P<0.01.
![Figure 7 The effects of nanomicelle on Microglia/macrophages polarization. (A) Immunofluorescence staining of iNOS+Iba-1+ around the hematoma border zone. (B) Western blot analysis of iNOS protein. (C) Immunofluorescence staining of Arg-1+Iba-1+ around the hematoma border zone. (D) Western blot analysis of iNOS protein. Scale bar =100μm. Data are mean ± SD, n = 6 mice per group, *P < 0.05, **P<0.01.](/cms/asset/2cbc2676-e486-4afa-bd97-be5a41f0374c/dijn_a_12192257_f0007_c.jpg)
Figure 8 The effects of nanomicelles on RAW 264.7 macrophage cells induced by LPS and INF-γ. (A) Immunofluorescence staining of iNOS. (B) Measurement of mean fluorescent intensity of INOS. (C) ARG-1 immunofluorescence staining. (D) Measurement of mean fluorescent intensity of ARG staining. Scar bar = 50μm, **P<0.01, ***P < 0.001.
![Figure 8 The effects of nanomicelles on RAW 264.7 macrophage cells induced by LPS and INF-γ. (A) Immunofluorescence staining of iNOS. (B) Measurement of mean fluorescent intensity of INOS. (C) ARG-1 immunofluorescence staining. (D) Measurement of mean fluorescent intensity of ARG staining. Scar bar = 50μm, **P<0.01, ***P < 0.001.](/cms/asset/01cbfd6d-af54-4d41-962d-dee14ef5a5d6/dijn_a_12192257_f0008_c.jpg)
Figure 9 The effects of nanomicelle on pro-inflammatory cytokines in the hematoma border zone. (A) Immunohistochemical staining of IL-1β around the hematoma border zone. (B) Immunohistochemical staining of TNF-α around the hematoma border zone. (C) Western blot analysis of IL-1β. (D) Western blot analysis of TNF-α. Data are mean ± SD, n = 6 mice per group, *P < 0.05, **P<0.01. Scale bar =100 μm.
![Figure 9 The effects of nanomicelle on pro-inflammatory cytokines in the hematoma border zone. (A) Immunohistochemical staining of IL-1β around the hematoma border zone. (B) Immunohistochemical staining of TNF-α around the hematoma border zone. (C) Western blot analysis of IL-1β. (D) Western blot analysis of TNF-α. Data are mean ± SD, n = 6 mice per group, *P < 0.05, **P<0.01. Scale bar =100 μm.](/cms/asset/909fb4df-50a2-4a09-895a-e931e8faf94d/dijn_a_12192257_f0009_c.jpg)