4.7 Article

Electrical Stimulation of the Mesencephalic Locomotor Region Attenuates Neuronal Loss and Cytokine Expression in the Perifocal Region of Photothrombotic Stroke in Rats

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20092341

关键词

photothrombotic stroke; deep brain stimulation; mesencephalic locomotor region; neuroprotection; neuronal apoptosis; neuroinflammation

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [374031971 - TRR240: B06]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  3. University of Wuerzburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deep brain stimulation of the mesencephalic locomotor region (MLR) improves the motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease and experimental stroke by intervening in the motor cerebral network. Whether high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the MLR is involved in non-motor processes, such as neuroprotection and inflammation in the area surrounding the photothrombotic lesion, has not been elucidated. This study evaluates whether MLR-HFS exerts an anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory effect on the border zone of cerebral photothrombotic stroke. Rats underwent photothrombotic stroke of the right sensorimotor cortex and the implantation of a microelectrode into the ipsilesional MLR. After intervention, either HFS or sham stimulation of the MLR was applied for 24 h. The infarct volumes were calculated from consecutive brain sections. Neuronal apoptosis was analyzed by TUNEL staining. Flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry determined the perilesional inflammatory response. Neuronal apoptosis was significantly reduced in the ischemic penumbra after MLR-HFS, whereas the infarct volumes did not differ between the groups. MLR-HFS significantly reduced the release of cytokines and chemokines within the ischemic penumbra. MLR-HFS is neuroprotective and it reduces pro-inflammatory mediators in the area that surrounds the photothrombotic stroke without changing the number of immune cells, which indicates that MLR-HFS enables the function of inflammatory cells to be altered on a molecular level.

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