4.5 Article

Patterns of fos expression in the rostral medulla and caudal pons evoked by noxious craniovascular stimulation and periaqueductal gray stimulation in the cat

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1045, 期 1-2, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.01.091

关键词

trigeminovascular; migraine; brainstem; medulla

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional imaging studies and clinical evidence suggest that structures in the brainstem contribute to migraine pathophysiology with a strong association between the brainstem areas, such as periaqueductal gray (PAG), and the headache phase of migraine. Stimulation of the superior sagittal sinus (SSS) in humans evokes head pain. Second-order neurons in the trigeminal nucleus that are activated by SSS stimulation can be inhibited by PAG stimulation. The present study was undertaken to identify pontine and medullary structures that respond to noxious stimulation of the superior sagittal sinus or to ventrolateral PAG stimulation. The distribution of neurons expressing the protein product (fos) of the c-fos immediate early gene were examined in the rostral medulla and caudal pons of the cat after (i) sham, (ii) stimulation of the superior sagittal sinus, (iii) stimulation of the superior sagittal sinus with PAG stimulation, or (iv) stimulation of the PAG alone. The structures examined for fos were the trigeminal nucleus, infratrigeminal nucleus, reticular nuclei, nucleus raphe magnus, pontine blink premotor area, and superior salivatory nucleus. Compared with all other interventions, fos expression was significantly greater in the trigeminal nucleus and superior salivatory nucleus after SSS stimulation. After PAG with SSS stimulation, on the side ipsilateral to the site of PAG stimulation, fos was significantly greater in the nucleus raphe magnus. These structures are likely to be involved in the neurobiology of migraine. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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