Literature DB >> 28427911

Safety parameter considerations of anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in rats.

Mark P Jackson1, Dennis Truong2, Milene L Brownlow3, Jessica A Wagner4, R Andy McKinley4, Marom Bikson2, Ryan Jankord5.   

Abstract

A commonly referenced transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) safety threshold derives from tDCS lesion studies in the rat and relies on electrode current density (and related electrode charge density) to support clinical guidelines. Concerns about the role of polarity (e.g. anodal tDCS), sub-lesion threshold injury (e.g. neuroinflammatory processes), and role of electrode montage across rodent and human studies support further investigation into animal models of tDCS safety. Thirty-two anesthetized rats received anodal tDCS between 0 and 5mA for 60min through one of three epicranial electrode montages. Tissue damage was evaluated using hemotoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, Iba-1 immunohistochemistry, and computational brain current density modeling. Brain lesion occurred after anodal tDCS at and above 0.5mA using a 25.0mm2 electrode (electrode current density: 20.0A/m2). Lesion initially occurred using smaller 10.6mm2 or 5.3mm2 electrodes at 0.25mA (23.5A/m2) and 0.5mA (94.2A/m2), respectively. Histological damage was correlated with computational brain current density predictions. Changes in microglial phenotype occurred in higher stimulation groups. Lesions were observed using anodal tDCS at an electrode current density of 20.0A/m2, which is below the previously reported safety threshold of 142.9A/m2 using cathodal tDCS. The lesion area is not simply predicted by electrode current density (and so not by charge density as duration was fixed); rather computational modeling suggests average brain current density as a better predictor for anodal tDCS. Nonetheless, under the assumption that rodent epicranial stimulation is a hypersensitive model, an electrode current density of 20.0A/m2 represents a conservative threshold for clinical tDCS, which typically uses an electrode current density of 2A/m2 when electrodes are placed on the skin (resulting in a lower brain current density).
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Current density; Direct Current Stimulation; Microglia; Rat cortex; tDCS; tDCS modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28427911      PMCID: PMC5969807          DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2017.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Behav Immun        ISSN: 0889-1591            Impact factor:   7.217


  58 in total

1.  Transcranial direct-current stimulation modulates synaptic mechanisms involved in associative learning in behaving rabbits.

Authors:  Javier Márquez-Ruiz; Rocío Leal-Campanario; Raudel Sánchez-Campusano; Behnam Molaee-Ardekani; Fabrice Wendling; Pedro C Miranda; Giulio Ruffini; Agnès Gruart; José María Delgado-García
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS.

Authors:  Preet Minhas; Varun Bansal; Jinal Patel; Johnson S Ho; Julian Diaz; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.390

3.  Considerations for safety in the use of extracranial stimulation for motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  W F Agnew; D B McCreery
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 4.  A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools.

Authors:  A J Woods; A Antal; M Bikson; P S Boggio; A R Brunoni; P Celnik; L G Cohen; F Fregni; C S Herrmann; E S Kappenman; H Knotkova; D Liebetanz; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; W Paulus; A Priori; D Reato; C Stagg; N Wenderoth; M A Nitsche
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Cellular effects of acute direct current stimulation: somatic and synaptic terminal effects.

Authors:  Asif Rahman; Davide Reato; Mattia Arlotti; Fernando Gasca; Abhishek Datta; Lucas C Parra; Marom Bikson
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Quantitative real-time RT-PCR assessment of spinal microglial and astrocytic activation markers in a rat model of neuropathic pain.

Authors:  F Y Tanga; V Raghavendra; J A DeLeo
Journal:  Neurochem Int       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.921

7.  Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients.

Authors:  Csaba Poreisz; Klára Boros; Andrea Antal; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Brain Res Bull       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 4.077

8.  Modulating Hippocampal Plasticity with In Vivo Brain Stimulation.

Authors:  Joyce G Rohan; Kim A Carhuatanta; Shawn M McInturf; Molly K Miklasevich; Ryan Jankord
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Modulates Neurogenesis and Microglia Activation in the Mouse Brain.

Authors:  Anton Pikhovych; Nina Paloma Stolberg; Lea Jessica Flitsch; Helene Luise Walter; Rudolf Graf; Gereon Rudolf Fink; Michael Schroeter; Maria Adele Rueger
Journal:  Stem Cells Int       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 5.443

10.  Can tDCS enhance treatment of aphasia after stroke?

Authors:  Rachel Holland; Jenny Crinion
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 2.773

View more
  23 in total

1.  Charge density, not current density, is a more comprehensive safety measure of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Pratik Y Chhatbar; Mark S George; Steven A Kautz; Wuwei Feng
Journal:  Brain Behav Immun       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 7.217

2.  Toward comprehensive tDCS safety standards.

Authors:  Mark P Jackson; Marom Bikson; David Liebetanz; Michael Nitsche
Journal:  Brain Behav Immun       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 7.217

3.  Transcranial Electrical Brain Stimulation in Alert Rodents.

Authors:  Brita Fritsch; Anne-Kathrin Gellner; Janine Reis
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 4.  Incomplete evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes.

Authors:  Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Paola Marangolo; Benjamin M Hampstead; Sven Bestmann; Elisabeth Galletta; Helena Knotkova; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 8.955

5.  In Vivo Modulation of the Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).

Authors:  Da Wi Shin; Jie Fan; Eric Luu; Wasem Khalid; Yifan Xia; Niranjan Khadka; Marom Bikson; Bingmei M Fu
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Safety of Special Waveform of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (TES): In Vivo Assessment.

Authors:  Muhammad Adeel; Chun-Ching Chen; Bor-Shing Lin; Hung-Chou Chen; Jian-Chiun Liou; Yu-Ting Li; Chih-Wei Peng
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 6.208

7.  Exploring new transcranial electrical stimulation strategies to modulate brain function in animal models.

Authors:  Carlos A Sánchez-León; Álvaro Sánchez-López; Claudia Ammann; Isabel Cordones; Alejandro Carretero-Guillén; Javier Márquez-Ruiz
Journal:  Curr Opin Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-09-12

8.  How to consider animal data in tDCS safety standards.

Authors:  Mark P Jackson; Marom Bikson; David Liebetanz; Michael Nitsche
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 8.955

9.  Quantitative reassessment of safety limits of tDCS for two animal studies.

Authors:  Pratik Y Chhatbar; Mark S George; Steven A Kautz; Wuwei Feng
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 8.955

10.  Using animal models to improve the design and application of transcranial electrical stimulation in humans.

Authors:  Carlos A Sánchez-León; Claudia Ammann; Javier F Medina; Javier Márquez-Ruiz
Journal:  Curr Behav Neurosci Rep       Date:  2018-04-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.