4.6 Article

Rehabilitation after intracerebral hemorrhage in rats improves recovery with enhanced dendritic complexity but no effect on cell proliferation

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 214, 期 1, 页码 42-47

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.04.025

关键词

Intracerebral hemorrhage; Stroke; Rehabilitation; Recovery; Golgi-Cox staining; Dendritic complexity; Striatum

资金

  1. Heart and Stroke Foundation (HSF) of Alberta, Northwest Territories and Nunavut
  2. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  4. Canadian Stroke Network
  5. HSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rehabilitation, consisting of enriched environment and skilled reach training, improves recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in rats. We tested whether rehabilitation influences dendritic morphology (Golgi-Cox staining experiment 1) or cell proliferation (immunohistochemistry experiment 2). In the latter experiment, BrdU was given from 14 to 18 days post stroke, and cells were labeled for BrdU along with NeuN, lba1 or GFAP. One week after a striatal ICH, via collagenase infusion, the rats were given rehabilitation for 2 weeks or control treatment (group housing in standard cages). Behavioral outcome (e.g., skilled reaching, walking) was assessed at multiple times. Rats were euthanized at 5 (experiment 2) or 6 (experiment 1) weeks post-ICH. As expected, rehabilitation significantly improved skilled reaching and walking ability. There was also a concomitant increase in dendritic length in peri-hematoma striatum and ipsilateral cortex as well as in the contralateral striatum. Lesion volume did not differ between groups, nor did cell proliferation. There was no evidence of neurogenesis, but there was increased lba1 and GFAP labeling in the injured hemisphere. Thus, rehabilitation likely improves outcome after ICH though a plasticity response (e.g., increased dendritic growth) that does not involve neurogenesis. (C) 2010 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

4.6
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