4.6 Article

The metabolomic profile during isoflurane anesthesia differs from propofol anesthesia in the live rodent brain

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 1432-1442

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2011.1

关键词

anesthesia; brain; in vivo; magnetic resonance spectroscopy; metabolomics; rat

资金

  1. New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR), NIH [K30]
  2. NCRR [1S10RR025515-01]
  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Stony Brook University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of noninvasive techniques to discover new biomarkers in the live brain is important to further understand the underlying metabolic pathways of significance for processes such as anesthesia-induced apoptosis and cognitive dysfunction observed in the undeveloped brain. We used in vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and two different signal processing approaches to test the hypothesis that volatile (isoflurane) and intravenous (propofol) anesthetics at equipotent doses produce distinct metabolomic profiles in the hippocampus and parietal cortex of the live rodent. For both brain regions, prolonged isoflurane anesthesia was characterized by higher levels of lactate (Lac) and glutamate compared with long-lasting propofol. In contrast, propofol anesthesia was characterized by very low concentrations of Lac ([lac]) as well as glucose. Quantitative analysis revealed that the [lac] was fivefold higher with isoflurane compared with propofol anesthesia and independent of [lac] in blood. The metabolomic profiling further demonstrated that for both brain regions, Lac was the most important metabolite for the observed differences, suggesting activation of distinct metabolic pathways that may impact mechanisms of action, background cellular functions, and possible agent-specific neurotoxicity. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2011) 31, 1432-1442; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2011.1;published online 26 January 2011

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