4.7 Article

Blood oxygenation level-dependent visualization of synaptic relay stations of sensory pathways along the neuroaxis in response to graded sensory stimulation of a limb

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 26, 期 23, 页码 6330-6336

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0626-06.2006

关键词

fMRI; rat; spinal cord; somatosensory; dorsal horn; medulla; pain; morphine; BOLD; EPI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blood oxygenation level-dependent ( BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging ( fMRI) was used to test at which levels of the neuroaxis signals are elicited when different modalities of sensory information from the limbs ascend to cortex cerebri. We applied graded electric stimuli to the rat hindlimbs and used echo-planar imaging to monitor activity changes in the lumbar spinal cord and medulla oblongata, where primary afferents of painful and nonpainful sensation synapse, respectively. BOLD signals were detected in ipsilateral lumbar spinal cord gray matter using sufficiently strong stimuli. Using stimuli well below the threshold needed for signals to be elicited in the spinal cord, we found BOLD responses in dorsal medulla oblongata. The distribution of these signals is compatible with the neuroanatomy of the respective synaptic relay stations of the corresponding sensory pathways. Hence, the sensory pathways conducting painful and nonpainful information were successfully distinguished. The fMRI signals in the spinal cord were markedly decreased by morphine, and these effects were counteracted by naloxone. We conclude that fMRI can be used as a reliable and valid method to monitor neuronal activity in the rat spinal cord and medulla oblongata in response to sensory stimuli. Previously, we also documented BOLD signals from thalamus and cortex. Thus, BOLD responses can be elicited at all principal synaptic relay stations along the neuroaxis from lumbar spinal cord to sensory cortex. Rat spinal cord fMRI should become a useful tool in experimental spinal cord injury and pain research.

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