4.8 Article

Direct Measurement of Cerebrospinal Fluid Production in Mice

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108524

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (the National Institutes of Health, United States) [R01NS100366]
  2. National Institute on Aging (the National Institutes of Health, United States) [RF1AG057575]
  3. US Army Research Office grant (United States) [MURI W911NF1910280HT]
  4. Foundation Leducq Transatlantic Networks of Excellence Program
  5. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  6. Lundbeck Foundation
  7. EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program grant [666881]
  8. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant (Denmark) [742112]
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [742112] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  10. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [666881] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emerging interest in brain fluid transport has prompted a need for techniques that provide an understanding of what factors regulate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) production. Here, we describe a methodology for direct quantification of CSF production in awake mice. We measure CSF production by placing a catheter in a lateral ventricle, while physically blocking outflow from the 4th ventricle. Using this methodology, we show that CSF production increases during isoflurane anesthesia, and to a lesser extent with ketamine/xylazine anesthesia, relative to the awake state. Aged mice have reduced CSF production, which is even lower in aged mice overexpressing amyloid-beta. Unexpectedly, CSF production in young female mice is 30% higher than in age-matched males. Altogether, the present observations imply that a reduction in CSF production might contribute to the age-related risk of proteinopathies but that the rate of CSF production and glymphatic fluid transport are not directly linked.

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

4.8
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