Cargando…

Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is primarily used in humans to change the state of corticospinal excitability. To assess the efficacy of different rTMS stimulation protocols, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are used as a readout due to their non-invasive nature. Stimulation of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sykes, Matthew, Matheson, Natalie A., Brownjohn, Philip W., Tang, Alexander D., Rodger, Jennifer, Shemmell, Jonathan B. H., Reynolds, John N. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27766073
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2016.00080
_version_ 1782458201808044032
author Sykes, Matthew
Matheson, Natalie A.
Brownjohn, Philip W.
Tang, Alexander D.
Rodger, Jennifer
Shemmell, Jonathan B. H.
Reynolds, John N. J.
author_facet Sykes, Matthew
Matheson, Natalie A.
Brownjohn, Philip W.
Tang, Alexander D.
Rodger, Jennifer
Shemmell, Jonathan B. H.
Reynolds, John N. J.
author_sort Sykes, Matthew
collection PubMed
description Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is primarily used in humans to change the state of corticospinal excitability. To assess the efficacy of different rTMS stimulation protocols, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are used as a readout due to their non-invasive nature. Stimulation of the motor cortex produces a response in a targeted muscle, and the amplitude of this twitch provides an indirect measure of the current state of the cortex. When applied to the motor cortex, rTMS can alter MEP amplitude, however, results are variable between participants and across studies. In addition, the mechanisms underlying any change and its locus are poorly understood. In order to better understand these effects, MEPs have been investigated in vivo in animal models, primarily in rats. One major difference in protocols between rats and humans is the use of general anesthesia in animal experiments. Anesthetics are known to affect plasticity-like mechanisms and so may contaminate the effects of an rTMS protocol. In the present study, we explored the effect of anesthetic on MEP amplitude, recorded before and after intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), a patterned rTMS protocol with reported facilitatory effects. MEPs were assessed in the brachioradialis muscle of the upper forelimb under two anesthetics: a xylazine/zoletil combination and urethane. We found MEPs could be induced under both anesthetics, with no differences in the resting motor threshold or the average baseline amplitudes. However, MEPs were highly variable between animals under both anesthetics, with the xylazine/zoletil combination showing higher variability and most prominently a rise in amplitude across the baseline recording period. Interestingly, application of iTBS did not facilitate MEP amplitude under either anesthetic condition. Although it is important to underpin human application of TMS with mechanistic examination of effects in animals, caution must be taken when selecting an anesthetic and in interpreting results during prolonged TMS recording.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5052269
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50522692016-10-20 Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies Sykes, Matthew Matheson, Natalie A. Brownjohn, Philip W. Tang, Alexander D. Rodger, Jennifer Shemmell, Jonathan B. H. Reynolds, John N. J. Front Neural Circuits Neuroscience Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is primarily used in humans to change the state of corticospinal excitability. To assess the efficacy of different rTMS stimulation protocols, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are used as a readout due to their non-invasive nature. Stimulation of the motor cortex produces a response in a targeted muscle, and the amplitude of this twitch provides an indirect measure of the current state of the cortex. When applied to the motor cortex, rTMS can alter MEP amplitude, however, results are variable between participants and across studies. In addition, the mechanisms underlying any change and its locus are poorly understood. In order to better understand these effects, MEPs have been investigated in vivo in animal models, primarily in rats. One major difference in protocols between rats and humans is the use of general anesthesia in animal experiments. Anesthetics are known to affect plasticity-like mechanisms and so may contaminate the effects of an rTMS protocol. In the present study, we explored the effect of anesthetic on MEP amplitude, recorded before and after intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), a patterned rTMS protocol with reported facilitatory effects. MEPs were assessed in the brachioradialis muscle of the upper forelimb under two anesthetics: a xylazine/zoletil combination and urethane. We found MEPs could be induced under both anesthetics, with no differences in the resting motor threshold or the average baseline amplitudes. However, MEPs were highly variable between animals under both anesthetics, with the xylazine/zoletil combination showing higher variability and most prominently a rise in amplitude across the baseline recording period. Interestingly, application of iTBS did not facilitate MEP amplitude under either anesthetic condition. Although it is important to underpin human application of TMS with mechanistic examination of effects in animals, caution must be taken when selecting an anesthetic and in interpreting results during prolonged TMS recording. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5052269/ /pubmed/27766073 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2016.00080 Text en Copyright © 2016 Sykes, Matheson, Brownjohn, Tang, Rodger, Shemmell and Reynolds. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Sykes, Matthew
Matheson, Natalie A.
Brownjohn, Philip W.
Tang, Alexander D.
Rodger, Jennifer
Shemmell, Jonathan B. H.
Reynolds, John N. J.
Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies
title Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies
title_full Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies
title_fullStr Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies
title_short Differences in Motor Evoked Potentials Induced in Rats by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation under Two Separate Anesthetics: Implications for Plasticity Studies
title_sort differences in motor evoked potentials induced in rats by transcranial magnetic stimulation under two separate anesthetics: implications for plasticity studies
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27766073
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2016.00080
work_keys_str_mv AT sykesmatthew differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies
AT mathesonnataliea differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies
AT brownjohnphilipw differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies
AT tangalexanderd differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies
AT rodgerjennifer differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies
AT shemmelljonathanbh differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies
AT reynoldsjohnnj differencesinmotorevokedpotentialsinducedinratsbytranscranialmagneticstimulationundertwoseparateanestheticsimplicationsforplasticitystudies