| Literature DB >> 27188340 |
Brian D Stemper1,2,3, Alok S Shah4,5,6, Rachel Chiariello4,5,6, Christopher M Olsen7,6, Matthew D Budde4,5,6, Aleksandra Glavaski-Joksimovic4,5,6, Michael McCrea4,5,6, Shekar N Kurpad4,5, Frank A Pintar4,5.
Abstract
Quantifying injury tolerance for concussion is complicated by variability in the type, severity, and time course of post-injury physiological and behavioral changes. The current study outlined acute and chronic changes in behavioral metrics following rotational acceleration-induced concussion in rats. The Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) rotational injury model independently controlled magnitude and duration of the rotational acceleration pulse. Increasing rotational acceleration magnitude produced longer recovery times, which were used in this study and our prior work as an assessment of acute injury severity. However, longer duration rotational accelerations produced changes in emotionality as measured using the elevated plus maze. Cognitive deficits were for the most part not apparent in the Morris water maze assessment, possibly due to the lower severity of rotational acceleration pulses incorporated in this study. Changes in emotionality evolved between acute and chronic assessments, in some cases increasing in severity and in others reversing polarity. These findings highlight the complexity of quantifying injury tolerance for concussion and demonstrate a need to incorporate rotational acceleration magnitude and duration in proposed injury tolerance metrics. Rotational velocity on its own was not a strong predictor of the magnitude or type of acute behavioral changes following concussion, although its combination with rotational acceleration magnitude using multivariate analysis was the strongest predictor for acute recovery time and some chronic emotional-type behavioral changes.Entities:
Keywords: Angular acceleration; Animal model; Biomechanics; Concussion; Injury; Rotational velocity; Sports; Traumatic brain injury
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27188340 PMCID: PMC5093216 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-016-1647-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Biomed Eng ISSN: 0090-6964 Impact factor: 3.934
Figure 1MCW rotational injury device that was used to produce mild TBI in rats through coronal plane rotational acceleration of the head. The three images demonstrate helmet positioning just prior to impact from the rod (left), and during impact causing the helmet to rotate 40° (middle) and 80° (right). Total rotation of the helmet was limited to 90°. Motion was constrained to pure coronal plane rotation, without linear displacement, using a fixed bearing located anterior to the helmet. (b) The axis of helmet rotation was located in the mid-sagittal plane in the lower half of the brain.
Rotational acceleration vs. time characteristics for each of the four experimental injury groups incorporated in this study.
| Group | Velocity group | Number | Rotational acceleration (rat) | Rotational velocity (rad/s2) | Human equivalent acceleration (rad/s2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnitude (krad/s2) | Duration (ms) | |||||
| Shams | – | 16 | – | – | – | – |
| M1D1 | V1 | 14 | 215 ± 26 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 140 ± 39 | 2794 |
| M1D2 | V2 | 38 | 206 ± 33 | 3.6 ± 0.4 | 263 ± 72 | 2690 |
| M2D1 | V2 | 34 | 358 ± 46 | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 236 ± 78 | 4652 |
| M2D2 | V3 | 25 | 368 ± 36 | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 383 ± 97 | 4782 |
| M3D2 | V4 | 19 | 503 ± 26 | 3.2 ± 0.2 | 613 ± 13 | 6537 |
M: magnitude of rotational acceleration, D: duration of rotational acceleration. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The total number of rats used for each of the five groups is also included. Rotational acceleration magnitudes measured during rodent experimentation are scaled using Eq. (1) to compute Human Equivalent Accelerations. Due to a lack of any remarkable differences between M1D1 and Shams, the M1D1 group was only used for acute assessments
Figure 2(a) Elevated plus maze (EPM) and (b) Morris water maze (MWM) assessments used to identify post injury changes in activity and emotionality (EPM) and cognitive deficits (MWM).
Acute and chronic post-injury behavioral data for the five experimental injury groups as well as shams.
| Metric |
| Sham (0) | M1D1 (1) | M1D2 (2) | M2D1 (3) | M2D2 (4) | M3D2 (5) | Sign. Post Hocs ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Number | 16 | 14 | 38 | 34 | 25 | 19 | ||
| Recovery time (s) | 0.0000 | 178 ± 52 | 129 ± 69 | 181 ± 56 | 228 ± 86 | 223 ± 64 | 222 ± 40 | 0,1,2–3,4,5 |
| Number | 8 | 14 | 21 | 23 | 16 | 10 | ||
| EPM distance traveled (cm) | 0.0024 | 724 ± 410 | 954 ± 404 | 1241 ± 326 | 1131 ± 392 | 1263 ± 371 | 1334 ± 267 | 0–2,3,4,5 |
| EPM arm changes | 0.0005 | 15.6 ± 10.2 | 22.8 ± 11.1 | 29.7 ± 8.9 | 26.8 ± 11.8 | 34.0 ± 11.8 | 35.3 ± 8.9 | 0–2,3,4,5 |
| EPM open duration (s) | 0.0010 | 42.2 ± 29.6 | 58.7 ± 38.2 | 75.6 ± 39.3 | 50.7 ± 23.1 | 78.4 ± 37.1 | 98.1 ± 29.8 | 0,3–2,4 |
| MWM session 1 latency (s) | 0.2510 | 48.8 ± 8.0 | 37.5 ± 11.3 | 34.5 ± 11.2 | 37.8 ± 12.5 | 38.2 ± 14.1 | 36.0 ± 11.9 | |
| MWM session 2 latency (s) | 0.6503 | 17.8 ± 10.6 | 15.8 ± 10.8 | 23.1 ± 16.4 | 21.3 ± 18.7 | 21.5 ± 14.2 | 15.8 ± 10.7 | |
| MWM session 3 latency (s) | 0.6290 | 21.2 ± 12.4 | 18.0 ± 15.7 | 21.2 ± 11.2 | 18.9 ± 15.0 | 14.9 ± 7.1 | 15.2 ± 8.7 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Number | 8 | 17 | 11 | 9 | 9 | |||
| EPM distance traveled (cm) | 0.1012 | 1317 ± 727 | 915 ± 331 | 1168 ± 363 | 1101 ± 612 | 777 ± 270 | ||
| EPM arm changes | 0.0711 | 29.3 ± 10.7 | 23.1 ± 11.1 | 32.1 ± 10.2 | 24.5 ± 15.0 | 18.4 ± 8.5 | ||
| EPM open duration (s) | 0.2132 | 65.1 ± 35.6 | 64.9 ± 44.0 | 90.8 ± 35.3 | 79.3 ± 48.0 | 51.9 ± 19.7 | ||
| MWM session 1 latency (s) | 0.0103 | 24.1 ± 10.3 | 41.7 ± 13.1 | 38.5 ± 13.1 | 28.0 ± 10.6 | 31.0 ± 15.4 | 0–2 | |
| MWM session 2 latency (s) | 0.3808 | 18.9 ± 11.9 | 16.7 ± 8.1 | 13.0 ± 5.1 | 20.6 ± 11.1 | 15.7 ± 8.0 | ||
| MWM session 3 latency (s) | 0.1465 | 10.0 ± 3.4 | 13.6 ± 7.9 | 10.1 ± 5.5 | 17.0 ± 10.1 | 10.5 ± 3.4 | ||
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. p values represent group-based ANOVA analysis and statistically significant pairwise post hoc comparisons (p < 0.05) between groups (0 to 5) are shown. MWM session latencies represent the average latency across the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th MWM trials
Figure 3Linear regression relationship between independent rotational acceleration vs. time characteristics and recovery time. Rotational acceleration magnitude and rotational velocity were significant independent predictors for recovery time (p < 0.05). The combinations of rotational acceleration magnitude and duration, and rotational acceleration magnitude and rotational velocity were also significant predictors (p < 0.05).
Coefficients of determination (R 2) for rotational acceleration characteristics as predictors of different post-concussion behavioral metrics.
| Metric | Assessment | Magnitude | Duration | Rotational velocity | M + D | M + RV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery time | Acute |
| 0.007 |
|
|
|
| EPM distance traveled | Acute |
|
|
|
|
|
| Chronic | 0.060 |
|
|
|
| |
| EPM arm changes | Acute |
|
|
|
|
|
| Chronic | 0.036 |
|
|
|
| |
| EPM open duration | Acute |
|
|
|
|
|
| Chronic | 0.000 | 0.015 |
| 0.016 |
| |
| MWM latency trial 6 | Acute | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Chronic |
| 0.067 | 0.053 |
| 0.102 |
Significant predictors are indicated in bold (p < 0.05) or bold and underlined (p < 0.001). M: magnitude, D: duration, RV: rotational velocity
Figure 4Linear regression relationship between independent rotational acceleration vs. time characteristics and the number of EPM arm changes during acute (upper) and chronic (lower) assessments. Rotational acceleration magnitude and duration, and rotational velocity were significant independent predictors for the number of arm changes at the acute assessment (p < 0.05). The combinations of rotational acceleration magnitude and duration, and rotational acceleration magnitude and rotational velocity were also significant predictors at the acute assessment (p < 0.05). Rotational acceleration duration and rotational velocity were significant predictors at the chronic assessment (p < 0.05). The combinations of rotational acceleration magnitude and duration, and rotational acceleration magnitude and rotational velocity were also significant predictors (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Linear regression relationship between independent rotational acceleration vs. time characteristics and the duration of time spent in the open areas of the EPM during acute (upper) and chronic (lower) assessments. Rotational acceleration magnitude and duration, and rotational velocity were significant independent predictors for open area duration at the acute assessment (p < 0.05). The combinations of rotational acceleration magnitude and duration, and rotational acceleration magnitude and rotational velocity were also significant predictors at the acute assessment (p < 0.05). In the chronic phase, rotational velocity approached statistical significance (p = 0.058) and the combination of rotational acceleration magnitude and rotational velocity was a significant predictor a of open area time (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Latency to find the hidden platform in the Morris water maze assessment for each of the four trials per set and all three sets of the assessment. Data are presented as mean and standard error for each of the six groups incorporated in this study. Data for the acute assessment are presented in the upper figure and data for the chronic assessment are presented in the lower figure.