4.5 Article

Does visual cortex lactate increase following photic stimulation in migraine without aura patients? A functional 1H-MRS study

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 295-302

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1007/s10194-011-0295-7

关键词

Migraine without aura; Functional H-1-MRS; Lactate; Visual cortex; Absolute quantification

资金

  1. Special Research Fund [B/07768/02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (H-1-MRS) has been used in a number of studies to assess noninvasively the temporal changes of lactate (Lac) in the activated human brain. Migraine neurobiology involves lack of cortical habituation to repetitive stimuli and a mitochondrial component has been put forward. Our group has recently demonstrated a reduction in the high-energy phosphates adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and phosphocreatine (PCr) in the occipital lobe of migraine without aura (MwoA) patients, at least in a subgroup, in a phosphorus MRS (P-31-MRS) study. In previous studies, basal Lac levels or photic stimulation (PS)-induced Lac levels were found to be increased in patients with migraine with aura (MwA) and migraine patients with visual symptoms and paraesthesia, paresia and/or dysphasia, respectively. The aim of this study was to perform functional H-1-MRS at 3 T in 20 MwoA patients and 20 control subjects. Repetitive visual stimulation was applied using MR-compatible goggles with 8 Hz checkerboard stimulation during 12 min. We did not observe any significant differences in signal integrals, ratios and absolute metabolite concentrations, including Lac, between MwoA patients and controls before PS. Lac also did not increase significantly during and following PS, both for MwoA patients and controls. Subtle Lac changes, smaller than the sensitivity threshold (i.e. estimated at 0.1-0.2 mu mol/g at 3 T), cannot be detected by MRS. Our study does, however, argue against a significant switch to non-aerobic glucose metabolism during long-lasting PS of the visual cortex in MwoA patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据