4.6 Article

Neurovascular coupling in rat brain operates independent of hemoglobin deoxygenation

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.259

关键词

ATP; cerebral blood flow; cortical spreading depression; feed-forward regulation; hyperbaric hyperoxygenation; somatosensory stimulation

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation
  3. European Union (EFRE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, a universal, simple, and fail-safe mechanism has been proposed by which cerebral blood flow (CBF) might be coupled to oxygen metabolism during neuronal activation without the need for any tissue-based mechanism. According to this concept, vasodilation occurs by local erythrocytic release of nitric oxide or ATP wherever and whenever hemoglobin is deoxygenated, directly matching oxygen demand and supply in every tissue. For neurovascular coupling in the brain, we present experimental evidence challenging this view by applying an experimental regime operating without deoxy-hemoglobin. Hyperbaric hyperoxygenation (HBO) allowed us to prevent hemoglobin deoxygenation, as the oxygen that was physically dissolved in the tissue was sufficient to support oxidative metabolism. Regional CBF and regional cerebral blood oxygenation were measured using a cranial window preparation in anesthetized rats. Hemodynamic and neuronal responses to electrical forepaw stimulation or cortical spreading depression (CSD) were analyzed under normobaric normoxia and during HBO up to 4 ATA (standard atmospheres absolute). Inconsistent with the proposed mechanism, during HBO, CBF responses to functional activation or CSD were unchanged. Our results show that activation-induced CBF regulation in the brain does not operate through the release of vasoactive mediators on hemoglobin deoxygenation or through a tissue-based oxygen-sensing mechanism. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2010) 30, 757-768; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.259; published online 30 December 2009

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