4.6 Article

Intracerebral hemorrhage models in rat: comparing collagenase to blood infusion

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600548

关键词

animal models; behavior; blood-brain barrier; magnetic resonance imaging; striatum; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many therapies have shown promise in preclinical stroke studies, but few benefit patients. A greater understanding of stroke pathophysiology is needed to successfully develop therapies, and this depends on appropriate animal models. The collagenase and blood infusion models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are widely used; yet, investigators often prefer using one model for a variety of reasons. Thus, we directly compared these to highlight advantages and limitations of each as well as the assessment approach. An ICH was created by infusing blood or bacterial collagenase into the rats' striatum. We matched initial hematoma volume in each model (Experiment 1) and assessed the time course of bleeding (Experiment 2). Functional deficits and the progression of injury were tracked over 6 weeks using behavior, magnetic resonance imaging, and histology (Experiment 3). Despite similar initial hematoma volumes, collagenase-induced ICH resulted in a greater blood brain barrier breakdown and more damage to the striatum, substantia nigra, white matter, and cortex. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed faster hematoma resolution in the blood model, and little increase in the volume of tissue lost from 1 to 6 weeks. In contrast, tissue loss continued over 4 weeks in the collagenase model. Finally, functional deficits recovered more quickly and completely in the blood model. This study highlights key differences between these models and that neither closely replicates the human condition. Thus, both should be used whenever possible taking into account the significant differences between these models and their limitations. Furthermore, this work illustrates significant weaknesses with several outcome measures.

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