4.6 Article

Pathway-specific variations in neurovascular and neurometabolic coupling in rat primary somatosensory cortex

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.23

关键词

blood flow; glutamate; interneurons; oxygen tension; synaptic activity; whisker barrel

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Neurovascular Signaling (LUCENS)
  2. NOVO Nordisk Foundation
  3. Danish Medical Research Council [MOP-84209]
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional neuroimaging signals are generated, in part, by increases in cerebral blood flow (CBF) evoked by mediators, such as nitric oxide and arachidonic acid derivatives that are released in response to increased neurotransmission. However, it is unknown whether the vascular and metabolic responses within a given brain area differ when local neuronal activity is evoked by an activity in the distinct neuronal networks. In this study we assessed, for the first time, the differences in neuronal responses and changes in CBF and oxygen consumption that are evoked after the activation of two different inputs to a single cortical area. We show that, for a given level of glutamatergic synaptic activity, corticocortical and thalamocortical inputs evoked activity in pyramidal cells and different classes of interneurons, and produced different changes in oxygen consumption and CBF. Furthermore, increases in stimulation intensities either turned off or activated additional classes of inhibitory interneurons immunoreactive for different vasoactive molecules, which may contribute to increases in CBF. Our data imply that for a given cortical area, the amplitude of vascular signals will depend critically on the type of input, and that a positive blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal may be a consequence of the activation of both pyramidal cells and inhibitory interneurons. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2009) 29, 976-986; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.23; published online 1 April 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