4.7 Article

Imaging separation of neuronal from vascular effects of cocaine on rat cortical brain in vivo

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 1130-1139

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.045

关键词

Cocaine; Cerebral blood flow; Calcium [Ca]; Optical imaging; Drug abuse and addiction; fMRI

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K25-DA021200, 2R01-DK059265, 1RC1DA028534]
  2. Department of Energy (DOE) [LDRD 10-023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MRI techniques to study brain function assume coupling between neuronal activity, metabolism and flow. However, recent evidence of physiological uncoupling between neuronal and cerebrovascular events highlights the need for methods to simultaneously measure these three properties. We report a multimodality optical approach that integrates dual-wavelength laser speckle imaging (measures changes in blood flow, blood volume and hemoglobin oxygenation), digital-frequency-ramping optical coherence tomography (images quantitative 3D vascular network) and Rhod(2) fluorescence (images intracellular calcium for measure of neuronal activity) at high spatiotemporal resolutions (30 mu m, 10 Hz) and over a large field of view (3 x 5 mm(2)). We apply it to assess cocaine's effects in rat cortical brain and show an immediate decrease (3.5 +/- 0.9 min, phase 1) in the oxygen content of hemoglobin and the cerebral blood flow followed by an overshoot (7.1 +/- 0.2 min, phase 2) lasting over 20 min whereas Ca2+ increased immediately (peaked at t = 4.1 +/- 0.4 min) and remained elevated. This enabled us to identify a delay (2.9 +/- 0.5 min) between peak neuronal and vascular responses in phase 2. The ability of this multimodality optical approach for simultaneous imaging at high spatiotemporal resolutions permits us to distinguish the vascular versus cellular changes of the brain, thus complimenting other neuroimaging modalities for brain functional studies (e. g., PET, fMRI). (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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