4.4 Article

Diffusion tensor imaging detects axonal injury in a mouse model of repetitive closed-skull traumatic brain injury

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 513, 期 2, 页码 160-165

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.02.024

关键词

Diffusion tensor imaging; Traumatic brain injury; Axonal injury

资金

  1. NIH [R01 NS065069, P30 NS057105]
  2. Burroughs Wellcome Career Award in the Biomedical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mild traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are common in athletes, military personnel, and the elderly, and increasing evidence indicates that these injuries have long-term health effects. However, the difficulty in detecting these mild injuries in vivo is a significant impediment to understanding the underlying pathology and treating mild TBI. In the following experiments, we present the results of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and histological analysis of a model of mild repetitive closed-skull brain injury in mouse. Histological markers used included silver staining and amyloid precursor protein (APP) immunohistochemistry to detect axonal injury, and Iba-1 immunohistochemistry to assess microglial activation. At 24 h post-injury, before silver staining or microglial abnormalities were apparent by histology, no significant changes in any of the DTI parameters were observed within white matter. At 7 days post-injury we observed a reduction in axial and mean diffusivity. Relative anisotropy at 7 days correlated strongly with the degree of silver staining. Interestingly. APP was not observed at any timepoint examined. In addition to the white matter alterations, mean diffusivity was elevated in ipsilateral cortex at 24 h but returned to sham levels by 7 days. Altogether, this demonstrates that DTI is a sensitive method for detecting axonal injury despite a lack of conventional APP pathology. Further, this reflects a need to better understand the histological basis for DTI signal changes in mild TBI. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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