4.4 Article

Development of multi-electrode array screening for anticonvulsants in acute rat brain slices

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 185, 期 2, 页码 246-256

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.10.007

关键词

Epilepsy; Hippocampus; Multi-electrode array; Anticonvulsant; Slice; MEA

资金

  1. GW Pharmaceuticals
  2. Royal Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The acute hippocampal brain slice preparation is an important in vitro screening tool for potential anticonvulsants. Application of 4-aminopyridine (4-AP) or removal of external Mg2+ ions induces epileptiform bursting in slices which is analogous to electrical brain activity seen in status epilepticus states. We have developed these epileptiform models for use with multi-electrode arrays (MEAs), allowing recording across the hippocampal slice surface from 59 points. We present validation of this novel approach and analyses using two anticonvulsants, felbamate and phenobarbital, the effects of which have already been assessed in these models using conventional extracellular recordings. In addition to assessing drug effects on commonly described parameters (duration, amplitude and frequency), we describe novel methods using the MEA to assess burst propagation speeds and the underlying frequencies that contribute to the epileptiform activity seen. Contour plots are also used as a method of illustrating burst activity. Finally, we describe hitherto unreported properties of epileptiform, bursting induced by 100 mu M 4-AP or removal of external Mg2+ ions. Specifically, we observed decreases over time in burst amplitude and increase over time in burst frequency in the absence of additional pharmacological interventions. These MEA methods enhance the depth, quality and range of data that can be derived from the hippocampal slice preparation compared to conventional extracellular recordings. it may also uncover additional modes of action that contribute to anti-epileptiform drug effects. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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