4.7 Article

Comparison of stimulus-evoked cerebral hemodynamics in the awake mouse and under a novel anesthetic regime

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep12621

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council UK [G1002194]
  2. Alzheimer's Research UK (ARUK-IRG)
  3. MRC [G1002194] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Alzheimers Research UK [ARUK-IRG2014-10] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G1002194] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural activity is closely followed by a localised change in cerebral blood flow, a process termed neurovascular coupling. These hemodynamic changes form the basis of contrast in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and are used as a correlate for neural activity. Anesthesia is widely employed in animal fMRI and neurovascular studies, however anesthetics are known to profoundly affect neural and vascular physiology, particularly in mice. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of a novel 'modular' anesthesia that combined injectable (fentanyl-fluanisone/midazolam) and volatile (isoflurane) anesthetics in mice. To characterize sensory-evoked cortical hemodynamic responses, we used optical imaging spectroscopy to produce functional maps of changes in tissue oxygenation and blood volume in response to mechanical whisker stimulation. Following fine-tuning of the anesthetic regime, stimulation elicited large and robust hemodynamic responses in the somatosensory cortex, characterized by fast arterial activation, increases in total and oxygenated hemoglobin, and decreases in deoxygenated hemoglobin. Overall, the magnitude and speed of evoked hemodynamic responses under anesthesia resembled those in the awake state, indicating that the novel anesthetic combination significantly minimizes the impact of anesthesia. Our findings have broad implications for both neurovascular research and longitudinal fMRI studies that increasingly require the use of genetically engineered mice.

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

4.7
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