Comparison of the brain penetration injury associated with microdialysis and voltammetry

微透析和伏安法相关脑穿透损伤的比较

阅读:1

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that differences between microdialysis- and voltammetry-based estimates of extracellular dopamine in the brain might originate in the different penetration injury associated with each technique. To address this issue in a direct fashion, microdialysis probes and voltammetric microelectrodes were implanted in the rat striatum for 1, 4, or 24 h. Tissues were perfused with a suspension of fluorescently labeled nanobeads to assess blood vessels near the implant. Tissue sections (30 microm) were labeled with antibodies for PECAM, an endothelial cell marker, or GFAP, a glial marker. In non-implanted control tissue, blood vessels were reliably double-labeled with nanobeads and antiPECAM. Tissue near microdialysis probe tracks exhibited ischemia in the form of PECAM immunoreactive blood vessels devoid of nanobeads. Ischemia was most apparent after the 4-h implants. Probe tracks were surrounded by endothelial cell debris, which appeared as a diffuse halo of PECAM immunoreactivity. The halo intensity decreased with implant duration, indicative of an active wound-healing process. Consistent with this, after 24-h implants, the probe tracks were surrounded by hyperplasic and hypertrophic glia and glial processes were extending towards, and engulfing, the track. Carbon fiber microelectrodes produced a diffuse disruption of nanobead labeling but no focal disruption of blood vessels, no PECAM immunoreactive halo, and no glial activation. These findings illuminate the differences between the extent and nature of the penetration injuries associated with microdialysis and voltammetry.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。