4.5 Article

Enhancing the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation with intravenously injected magnetic nanoparticles

期刊

BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 2297-2307

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9bm00178f

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81771424, 81701299, 31400810, 81571143]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development Fund of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  3. Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation [BK20171259]
  4. Chinese Central Government
  5. Jiangsu Provincial Government
  6. Tian-Di Foundation
  7. College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Nanjing University, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive and clinically approved method for treating neurological disorders. However, the relatively weak intracranial electric current induced by TMS is an obvious inferiority which can only produce limited treatment effects in clinical application. The present study aimed to investigate the possibility of enhancing the effects of TMS with intravenously administrated magnetic nanoparticles. To facilitate crossing of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) were coated with carboxylated chitosan and poly(ethylene glycol). To aid the nanoparticles in crossing the BBB and targeting the predesigned brain regions, an external permanent magnet was attached to the foreheads of the rats before the intravenous administration of SPIONs. The electrophysiological tests showed that the maximum MEP amplitude recorded in an individual rat was significantly higher in the SPIONs + magnet group than in the saline group (5.78 +/- 2.54 vs. 1.80 +/- 1.55 mV, P = 0.015). In the M1 region, biochemical tests detected that the number density of c-fos positive cells in the SPIONs + magnet group was 3.44 fold that of the saline group. These results suggest that intravenously injected SPIONs can enhance the effects of TMS in treating neurological disorders.

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

4.5
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