Literature DB >> 25196632

Pre and post-injury environmental enrichment effects functional recovery following medial frontal cortical contusion injury in rats.

Justin Jacqmain1, Evan T Nudi2, Sarah Fluharty3, Jeffrey S Smith4.   

Abstract

The rodent has been the preferred research model for evaluating the mechanisms related to, and potential treatments for, traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many therapies previously determined to be effective in pre-clinical investigations have failed to show the same effectiveness in clinical trials. The environment a rodent is housed in plays an important role in brain and behavioral development. Housing rodents in non-enriched environments significantly alters the development of the rodent brain and its behavioral profile, negatively impacting the ecological validity of the rodent model. This investigation employed 113 male Long-Evans rats assigned to either an enriched environment (EE) or standard environment (SE) from post-natal day 25. At four months of age, rats received either a controlled cortical impact (CCI) to the medial frontal cortex (mFC) or sham injury. Rats assigned to EE or SE pre-injury were re-assigned to remain in, or switch to, EE or SE post-injury. The open-field test (OFT), vermicelli handling test (VHT) Morris water maze (MWM), and rotor-rod (RR), were used to evaluate the animals response to TBI. The data from the current investigation indicates that the performance of TBI rats assigned to pre-injury EE was improved on the MWM compared to the TBI rats assigned to pre-injury SE. However, those that were reared in the EE performed better on the MWM if placed into a SE post-injury as compared to those placed into the EE after insult. The TBI and sham groups that were raised, and remained, in the SE performed worse than any of the EE groups on the RR. TBI rats that were placed in the EE had larger cortices and more cells in the hippocampus than the TBI rats housed in the SE. These data strongly suggest that the pre-injury housing environment should be considered as investigators refine pre-clinical models of TBI.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Behavior; Neuroplasticity; Rat; TBI

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25196632     DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.08.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Brain Res        ISSN: 0166-4328            Impact factor:   3.332


  6 in total

Review 1.  Stem cells technology: a powerful tool behind new brain treatments.

Authors:  Lucienne N Duru; Zhenzhen Quan; Talal Jamil Qazi; Hong Qing
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.617

2.  Housing Complexity Alters GFAP-Immunoreactive Astrocyte Morphology in the Rat Dentate Gyrus.

Authors:  Garrick Salois; Jeffrey S Smith
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.599

3.  Hydrogen Sulfide Alleviates Anxiety, Motor, and Cognitive Dysfunctions in Rats with Maternal Hyperhomocysteinemia via Mitigation of Oxidative Stress.

Authors:  Olga Yakovleva; Ksenia Bogatova; Renata Mukhtarova; Aleksey Yakovlev; Viktoria Shakhmatova; Elena Gerasimova; Guzel Ziyatdinova; Anton Hermann; Guzel Sitdikova
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2020-07-02

4.  Chronic unpredictable stress during adolescence protects against adult traumatic brain injury-induced affective and cognitive deficits.

Authors:  Patricia B de la Tremblaye; JoDy L Wellcome; Kaitlyn Wiley; Carolyn A Lomahan; Eleni H Moschonas; Jeffrey P Cheng; Corina O Bondi; Anthony E Kline
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.610

Review 5.  Understanding the Mechanisms of Recovery and/or Compensation following Injury.

Authors:  Michael J Hylin; Abigail L Kerr; Ryan Holden
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.599

Review 6.  Enhancing and Extending Biological Performance and Resilience.

Authors:  Rehana K Leak; Edward J Calabrese; Walter J Kozumbo; Jeffrey M Gidday; Thomas E Johnson; James R Mitchell; C Keith Ozaki; Reinhard Wetzker; Aalt Bast; Regina G Belz; Hans E Bøtker; Sebastian Koch; Mark P Mattson; Roger P Simon; Randy L Jirtle; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 2.658

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.