Intracerebral Hemorrhage Models in Rat: Comparing Collagenase to Blood Infusion

Author:

MacLellan Crystal L1,Silasi Gergely1,Poon Candice C1,Edmundson Carmen L2,Buist Richard2,Peeling James23,Colbourne Frederick1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychology and Centre for Neuroscience, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

2. Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

3. Department of Chemistry, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Abstract

Many therapies have shown promise in preclinical stroke studies, but few benefit patients. A greater understanding of stroke pathophysiology is needed to successfully develop therapies, and this depends on appropriate animal models. The collagenase and blood infusion models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are widely used; yet, investigators often prefer using one model for a variety of reasons. Thus, we directly compared these to highlight advantages and limitations of each as well as the assessment approach. An ICH was created by infusing blood or bacterial collagenase into the rats' striatum. We matched initial hematoma volume in each model (Experiment 1) and assessed the time course of bleeding (Experiment 2). Functional deficits and the progression of injury were tracked over 6 weeks using behavior, magnetic resonance imaging, and histology (Experiment 3). Despite similar initial hematoma volumes, collagenase-induced ICH resulted in a greater blood—brain barrier breakdown and more damage to the striatum, substantia nigra, white matter, and cortex. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed faster hematoma resolution in the blood model, and little increase in the volume of tissue lost from 1 to 6 weeks. In contrast, tissue loss continued over 4 weeks in the collagenase model. Finally, functional deficits recovered more quickly and completely in the blood model. This study highlights key differences between these models and that neither closely replicates the human condition. Thus, both should be used whenever possible taking into account the significant differences between these models and their limitations. Furthermore, this work illustrates significant weaknesses with several outcome measures.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Clinical Neurology,Neurology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3