4.3 Article

A Compact Blast-Induced Traumatic Brain Injury Model in Mice

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnen/nlv019

关键词

Behavioral assessments; Blast injury; Edema; Neuronal degeneration; Traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. National Key Clinical Specialist Construction Programs of China
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R01 NS059622, R01 NS050243, 1R01 NS073636]
  3. Indiana Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Foundation (ISCBIRF)
  4. Mari Hulman George Endowment Funds
  5. Jiangsu Health International Exchange Program Sponsorship of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blast-induced traumatic brain injury (bTBI) is a common injury on the battlefield and often results in permanent cognitive and neurological abnormalities. We report a novel compact device that creates graded bTBI in mice. The injury severity can be controlled by precise pressures that mimic Friedlander shockwave curves. The mouse head was stabilized with a head fixator, and the body was protected with a metal shield; shockwave durations were 3 to 4 milliseconds. Reflective shockwave peak readings at the position of the mouse head were 12 +/- 2.6 psi, 50 +/- 20.3 psi, and 100 +/- 33.1 psi at 100, 200, and 250 psi predetermined driver chamber pressures, respectively. The bTBIs of 250 psi caused 80% mortality, which decreased to 27% with the metal shield. Brain and lung damage depended on the shockwave duration and amplitude. Cognitive deficits were assessed using the Morris water maze, Y-maze, and open-field tests. Pathological changes in the brain included disruption of the blood-brain barrier, multifocal neuronal and axonal degeneration, and reactive gliosis assessed by Evans Blue dye extravasation, silver and Fluoro-Jade B staining, and glial fibrillary acidic protein immunohistochemistry, respectively. Behavioral and pathological changes were injury severity-dependent. This mouse bTBI model may be useful for investigating injury mechanisms and therapeutic strategies associated with bTBI.

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

4.3
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