4.6 Article

7 Scaling of Brain Metabolism and Blood Flow in Relation to Capillary and Neural Scaling

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026709

关键词

-

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Education [NN 518 409238]
  2. Marie Curie Actions EU [FP7-PEOPLE-2007-IRG-210538]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain is one of the most energy demanding organs in mammals, and its total metabolic rate scales with brain volume raised to a power of around 5/6. This value is significantly higher than the more common exponent 3/4 relating whole body resting metabolism with body mass and several other physiological variables in animals and plants. This article investigates the reasons for brain allometric distinction on a level of its microvessels. Based on collected empirical data it is found that regional cerebral blood flow CBF across gray matter scales with cortical volume V as CBF similar to V-1/6, brain capillary diameter increases as V-1/12, and density of capillary length decreases as V-1/6. It is predicted that velocity of capillary blood is almost invariant (similar to V-e), capillary transit time scales as V-1/6, capillary length increases as V1/6+e, and capillary number as V2/3-e, where E is typically a small correction for medium and large brains, due to blood viscosity dependence on capillary radius. It is shown that the amount of capillary length and blood flow per cortical neuron are essentially conserved across mammals. These results indicate that geometry and dynamics of global neuro-vascular coupling have a proportionate character. Moreover, cerebral metabolic, hemodynamic, and microvascular variables scale with allometric exponents that are simple multiples of 1/6, rather than 1/4, which suggests that brain metabolism is more similar to the metabolism of aerobic than resting body. Relation of these findings to brain functional imaging studies involving the link between cerebral metabolism and blood flow is also discussed.

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