3.8 Article

Differences in the magnitude of long-term potentiation produced by theta burst and high frequency stimulation protocols matched in stimulus number

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH PROTOCOLS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 6-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresprot.2005.02.003

关键词

hippocampus; CA1; LTP; theta-burst stimulation; high frequency stimulation

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA 04195] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 60655] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS 39409, NS 39404-02S1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theta-burst stimulation (TBS: four pulses at 100 Hz repeated with 200 ms inter-burst-intervals) and another commonly used high-frequency stimulation protocol (HFS: 1 s burst of equally spaced pulses at 100 Hz) were compared for the magnitude of LTP produced in rat hippocampal slices. The total number of pulses applied during tetanus (TET) was either 40, 100, 200, or 300. In a conventional analysis of the last 10 min of the post-TET period, a two-way ANOVA revealed no difference either in UP of the field excitatory post-synaptic potential (fEPSP) between TBS and HFS or differences across pulse number at 40, 100, or 200 pulses. At 300 pulses, there was a significant main effect by pulse number but not by protocol. A linear regression analysis showed that stimulation protocol accounted for only about 10% of the change in magnitude while pulse number contributed to 30% of the change. However, when an extended analysis of the same data was performed across the entire post-TET period with a repeated-measure ANOVA, a small but persistent increase in TBS over HFS at 200 pulses was significant. A difference between TBS and HFS at 300 pulses that occurred only during the early phase of LTP was also significant. These results Suggest that, over a range of stimuli, the number of pulses in an induction protocol, rather than the pattern of stimulation, determines the magnitude of late phase Up, while TBS produces greater potentiation than HFS in the early phase of UP with higher TET number. (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

3.8
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