| Literature DB >> 32732932 |
Buket Donmez-Demir1, Şefik Evren Erdener2, Hulya Karatas1, Zeynep Kaya1, Ilkay Ulusoy3, Turgay Dalkara4.
Abstract
Although cortical spreading depolarizations (CSD) were originally assumed to be homogeneously and concentrically propagating waves, evidence obtained first in gyrencephalic brains and later in lissencephalic brains suggested a rather non-uniform propagation, shaped heterogeneously by factors like cortical region differences, vascular anatomy, wave recurrences and refractory periods. Understanding this heterogeneity is important to better evaluate the experimental models on the mechanistics of CSD and to make appropriate clinical estimations on neurological disorders like migraine, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. This study demonstrates the application of optical flow analysis tools for systematic and objective evaluation of spatiotemporal CSD propagation patterns in anesthetized mice and compares the propagation profile in different CSD induction models. Our findings confirm the asymmetric angular CSD propagation in lissencephalic brains and suggest a strong dependency on induction-method, such that continuous potassium chloride application leads to significantly higher angular propagation variability compared to optogenetically-induced CSDs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32732932 PMCID: PMC7393358 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69669-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Experimental design. (a) Skull model showing the thinned skull preparation (imaging area) and the burr holes for KCl application or probe placement for optogenetic stimulation. (b) Timeline showing KCl application or optogenetic stimulation in all four experimental groups. (c) A representative 1-h relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) trace from an animal with an optogenetically induced CSD, showing the first triphasic CSD wave (marked as 0) and the subsequent biphasic waves (marked as 1–5). Measurement is done in a 0.25 mm2 square ROI inside the imaging window. All pixel rCBF values inside this ROI are averaged and plotted over time. (d) Intensity profile for 450 nm light originating from the optogenetic stimulation fiber placed (400 µm, NA 0.48) placed over mouse skull, by Monte Carrlo simulation as a function of distance from the fiber. (e,f) Representative spatiotemporal blood flow maps showing CSD wave propagation through the imaging window as a biphasic hyperemic transient. (e) Correlation-time images of a single CSD wave, a biphasic wave of hyperemia as it enters and exits the imaging window. Correlation-time images are computed from speckle contrast images and the illustrated values are proportional with blood flow. The higher flow is indicated with warmer colors. (f) Further processed images to show DI/Io values with respect to baseline and after spatiotemporal filtering, reveal boundaries of the CSD wave more clearly, making execution of automated optical flow codes possible. Scalebars: 1 mm.
Figure 2DI/Io time series of two consecutive CSD waves from an animal with spontaneously triggered CSDs by continuous KCl application. Arrows indicate output of the optical flow analysis of pixel-wise angular velocity data. Distinctive propagation trajectories (SW vs. NW) of the two CSDs can be easily traced. Scalebars: 1 mm. Rose-plot histograms for CSD1 and CSD2 show the distribution of mean propagation vector angle throughout the time series of both experiments (Mean vector: 210 degrees for CSD1, 170 degrees for CSD2).
Figure 3Comparison of the angular CSD variation across experimental groups and its association with the CSD interval and order. (a) Schematic showing the definitions of intra-CSD variation, inter-CSD variation and CSD intervals measured from the consecutively recorded 5 CSDs. Time between the start of consecutive CSDs is defined as t1, t2, t3 and t4. Angular average of all pixel-wise propagation vectors for each timepoint during the lifetime of a CSD is shown as θ1, θ2, … θn where n is the number of frame count of the time series. For illustration, each CSD is shown as if made of 6 frames. Mean of these 6 angular vectors (θmean) is shown with a thick vertical bar. “Ang_var” is the function calculating the angular variation of the input vectors. (b) Intra-CSD variability is highest in case of CSDs triggered with continuous KCl application, followed by the group with intermittent (every 10 min) application of KCl. Each point represents the average angular variance of five CSDs from a single mouse. Each experiment is indicated with a different color. Optogenetically-triggered CSDs had less angular variation, regardless of the CSD interval. *p = 0.05, **p < 0.05. (c) Inter-CSD variation was higher in the continuous KCl application group, whereas the other groups showed no significant difference. Each point represents the mean of 5 CSDs from an animal. (d, e) Intra- and inter-CSD variances were compared to varying CSD intervals only from the continuous KCl application group because the CSD intervals were fixed in other groups. Each point represents the mean intra-CSD variance with the matching average CSD interval of 5 CSDs from an animal. Line shows the linear fit of the points, which was not significant and had low R2 (0.38 for inter-CSD, 0.22 for intra-CSD variance). (f) Intra-CSD variances of 5 consecutive CSDs in optogenetic stimulation and pooled KCl groups (i.e. regardless of the CSD interval), with respect to the CSD order. No significant association with the CSD order and intra-CSD variance was detected, suggesting that intra-CSD variance was similar across all consecutive CSDs independently of their order. The differences between KCl and optogenetic groups were significant for all CSD orders, except for the 3rd CSD (p = 0.22). (g) Rose plots showing distribution of propagation angles in all analyzed CSDs in two representative cases per experimental group. (h) The left rose plot shows the angular propagation trace of the 5 consecutive CSDs in a continuous-KCl applied animal, and the right rose plot shows the angular propagation trace in an animal with optogenetically (10-min intervals) triggered CSDs. Note the relatively less inter-CSD and intra-CSD propagation angle variability in the bottom plot.
Various measurement parameters in experimental groups.
| KCl-continuous (n = 20) | KCl-10 min (n = 15) | Optogen-5 min (n = 20) | Optogen-10 min (n = 10) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSD interval (s) | 361 ± 95 | 607 ± 1 | 300 | 600 | ||||
| Mean propagation angle [95% confidence interval] (degrees) | − 157.84 [− 231.91 to − 83.77] | − 150.77 [− 161.07 to − 140.47] | − 166.16 [− 171.41 to − 160.91] | − 148.35 [2.02] [− 150.37 to − 146.33] | ||||
Statistical comparisons between experimental groups.
| P-values: Kruskal Wallis ANOVA | P-values: Mann Whitney U test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opto 10 m-KCl 10 m | Opto 10 m-Opto 5 m | Opto 10 m-KCl contin | KCl 10 m-Opto5m | KCl 10 m-KCl contin | Opto 5 m-KCl contin | ||
| Intra-CSD variance | < 0.01 | 0.02 | > 0.90 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | 0.11 | < 0.01 |
| Inter-CSD variance | 0.02 | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | 0.05 | 0.13 | > 0.90 | 0.03 |