4.6 Article

A Semiquantitative Non-invasive Measurement of PcomA Patency in C57BL/6 Mice Explains Variance in Ischemic Brain Damage in Filament MCAo

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.576741

Keywords

stroke; mouse; angiography; MRI; posterior communicating artery; lesion size

Categories

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the ERA-NET NEURON scheme [BMBF 01EW1811]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [BO 4484/2-1]
  3. Fondation Leducq Transatlantic Network of Excellence [15CVD02]
  4. German Research Foundation (EXC NeuroCure)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerous studies on experimental ischemic stroke use the filament middle cerebral artery occlusion (fMCAo) model in C57BL/6 mice, but lesion sizes in this strain are highly variable. A known contributor is variation in the posterior communicating artery (PcomA) patency. We therefore aimed to provide a semiquantitative non-invasivein vivomethod to routinely assess PcomA patency. We included 43 male C57BL/6 mice from four independent studies using a transient 45 min fMCAo model. Edema-corrected lesion sizes were measured by magnetic resonance (MR) imaging 24 h after reperfusion. Time-of-flight MR angiography was performed 7 days before and 24 h after fMCAo. Scores of PcomA size measured 24 h after, but not scores measured 7 days before fMCAo were negatively correlated with lesion size. Variability in PcomA patency explained 30% of the variance in our cohort (p< 0.0001, coefficient of determinationr(2)= 0.3). In a simulation using parameters typical for experimental stroke research, the power to detect a true effect ofd= 1 between two groups increased by 15% when an according covariate was included in the statistical model. We have demonstrated thatin vivomeasurement of PcomA size is feasible and can lead to increased accuracy in assessing the effect of treatments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available