4.5 Article

Single injection of a low dose of pentylenetetrazole leads to epileptogenesis in an animal model of cortical dysplasia

期刊

EPILEPSIA
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 801-810

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01815.x

关键词

Cortical dysplasia; In utero radiation; Animal model; Second hit; Epilepsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cortical dysplasia (CD) is one of the most frequent causes of pharmacoresistent focal epilepsy. Despite significant advances in various diagnostic and therapeutic methods, the basic mechanisms of higher susceptibility for seizures in patients with CD are unknown. Animal models of CD present with a lower threshold for seizure induction. The purpose of this study is to further characterize the animal model of in utero radiation-induced CD and to illustrate the effect of a late postnatal second hit (low dose of pentylenetetrazole, PTZ) on the development of spontaneous seizures. Pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats were irradiated on E17 (145 cGy; control group was left untreated). Litters were implanted with bifrontal epidural and hippocampal depth electrodes. After baseline electroencephalography (EEG) recording, animals received 30 mg/kg PTZ and were chronically monitored. Histopathology of the brains was verified. No seizures were detected in animals that did not receive PTZ. PTZ-injected irradiated (XRT) rats showed severe prolonged, repetitive seizures during the acute period. During the chronic period, XRT rats had recurrent seizures and epileptiform spikes. PTZ-injected control animals exhibited milder and fewer acute seizures and did not show seizures during the chronic period. Histology was consistent with cortical and hippocampal dysplasia. This study shows that a single treatment with a low dose of PTZ renders XRT rats (but not age-matched controls) epileptic, exhibiting spontaneous epileptiform spikes and seizures on EEG. These results might mirror the natural history of patients with CD thought to be caused by prenatal/congenital or perinatal insults.

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