| Literature DB >> 30611209 |
Kun Cui1,2, Shuai Zhang3,4, Jinyao Sun1,2, Xueying Zhang1,2, Chong Ding1,2, Guizhi Xu1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcranial ultrasonic stimulation is a novel noninvasive tool for neuromodulation, and has high spatial resolution and deep penetration. Although it can increase excitation of neurons, its effects on neuron are poorly understood. This study was to evaluate effect of ultrasonic stimulation (US) on neurons in vitro. In this paper, the effect of US on the excitability and voltage-dependent [Formula: see text] currents of CA1 pyramidal neurons in the rat hippocampus was studied using patch clamp.Entities:
Keywords: CA1 pyramidal neuron; Delayed rectifier potassium current; Patch clamp; Transient outward potassium current; Ultrasonic stimulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30611209 PMCID: PMC6321733 DOI: 10.1186/s12868-018-0485-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurosci ISSN: 1471-2202 Impact factor: 3.288
Fig. 1Ultrasonic stimulation of brain slice
Fig. 2Effects of US on spontaneous firing action potentials of neurons. a Control. b 15 mW/cm2 US. c 30 mW/cm2 US
Effects of stimulations on spontaneous action potentials of neurons
| Group | Frequency | Amplitude |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 1.19 ± 0.32 | 101.91 ± 4.19 |
| 15 mW/cm2 US | 1.80 ± 0.29* | 106.17 ± 3.29* |
| 30 mW/cm2 US | 1.65 ± 0.27* | 105.33 ± 3.72* |
n = 12, mean ± SEM
*P < 0.05 versus control
Fig. 3of neurons after different stimulation. a Control. b 15 mW/cm2 US. c 30 mW/cm2 US
Fig. 4I of neurons after different stimulation. a Control. b 15 mW/cm2 US. c 30 mW/cm2 US
Fig. 5The current–voltage relationship of a and b . Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 12, *P < 0.05 vs. control, **P < 0.01 vs. control)
Fig. 6The steady-state activation curves of a and b after different stimulation
Effects of stimulations on the activation parameters of and
| Groups |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| k |
| k | |
| Control | − 16.76 ± 2.32 | 12.45 ± 2.03 | − 6.45 ± 2.61 | 19.87 ± 2.49 |
| 15 mW/cm2 US | − 15.19 ± 1.72 | 14.54 ± 1.57 | − 10.83 ± 1.83* | 20.60 ± 1.83 |
| 30 mW/cm2 US | − 16.68 ± 1.91 | 12.40 ± 1.68 | − 16.38 ± 4.09* | 22.20 ± 4.05* |
n = 12, mean ± SEM
*P < 0.05 versus control
Fig. 7The inactivation of after different stimulation. a Control. b 15 mW/cm2 US. c 30 mW/cm2 US (n = 12, mean ± SEM)
Fig. 9a The inactivation curves of . b recovery after inactivation curves of
Effects of stimulations on the inactivation parameters of
| Groups |
| |
|---|---|---|
|
| k | |
| Control | − 39.26 ± 0.85 | 7.72 ± 0.78 |
| 15 mW/cm2 US | − 45.33 ± 2.32* | 9.05 ± 2.08* |
| 30 mW/cm2 US | − 44.31 ± 2.86* | 8.62 ± 2.55* |
n = 12, mean ± SEM
*P < 0.05 versus control
Fig. 8The recovery from inactivation of after different stimulation. a Control. b 15 mW/cm2US. c 30 mW/cm2US
Effects of stimulations on the recovery from inactivation parameters of
| Group |
|
|---|---|
| Control | 30.58 ± 4.59 |
| 15 mW/cm2 US | 35.46 ± 6.09* |
| 30 mW/cm2 US | 40.25 ± 6.39* |
n = 12, mean ± SEM
*P < 0.05 versus control