4.5 Article

Dual responses of tissue partial pressure of oxygen after functional stimulation in rat somatosensory cortex

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 979, 期 1-2, 页码 104-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(03)02882-8

关键词

tissue pO(2); oxygen microelectrode; functional stimulation; rat somatosensory cortex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare the spatial heterogeneity of brain tissue partial pressure of oxygen (pO(2)) among local brain regions, we focused on functional and anatomical variations in rat somatosensory cortex. Tissue pO(2) was measured by using an oxygen microelectrode with high spatio-temporal resolution, and investigated in three somatosensory areas including hindlimb (HL), forelimb (FL), and trunk region (Tr). Their anatomical structures were determined with histological techniques (Nissl stain). In addition to the measurement of baseline tissue pO(2), we examined temporal shifts in tissue pO(2) distribution elicited by functional stimulation using the brushing stimulation to the hindlimb, forelimb, and trunk regions of the body. We observed that average tissue pO(2) in the Tr (14 +/- 10 Torr) was significantly lower than those in the HL (25 +/- 13 Torr) and FL (24 +/- 13 Torr). Such regional differences in tissue pO(2) were closely related to the cytoarchitectonic variations among these three areas. In addition, the functional stimulation enlarged the regional differences in the pO(2) depending on each somatosensory area; the pO(2) in the HL increased by 3.6 +/- 2.9% after the stimulation to hindlimb, whereas that in the Tr decreased by -2.9 +/- 2.5% after the stimulation to trunk region. Such dual responses of tissue pO(2) (i.e. increase or decrease) after the functional stimulation to the corresponding body regions may provide a criterion to clinically predict regions susceptible to tissue hypoxia, because considerable decrease in tissue pO(2) occurred in the Tr showing the lowest baseline pO(2). (C) 2003 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