Cited by 58Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques

Interpretation of Intrinsic Optical Signals and Calcein Fluorescence during Acute Excitotoxic Insult in the Hippocampal Slice

Jarvis, Cathryn R., Lilge, Lothar, Vipond, Gregory J., Andrew, R.David·1999·NeuroImage

Abstract

Immediate (acute) neuronal damage in response to overstimulation of glutamate receptors results from toxic exposure to food poisons acting as glutamate analogues. Glutamate agonist application evokes dramatic intrinsic optical signals (IOSs) in the rat hippocampal slice preparation, particularly in the CA1 region. Theoretically IOSs are generated by alterations to neuronal and glial structure that change light transmittance (LT) in live brain tissue. To better understand such signals, IOSs evoked by the glutamate agonist N-methyl-D-aspartate were imaged in the rat hippocampal slice. We correlated these excitotoxic signals with: (1) biophysical principles governing light transport, (2) tissue volume changes as measured using a free intracellular fluorophore (calcein), (3) dendritic morphology visualized by dye injection, and (4) standard histopathology. In theory LT elevation evoked during acute excitotoxic swelling is generated by change to subcellular structure that reduces light scattering during cell swelling. However, in responsive dendritic regions, initial LT elevation caused by cell swelling was overridden by the formation of dendritic beads, a conformation that increased light scattering (thereby reducing LT) even as the calcein signal demonstrated that the tissue continued to swell. Thus IOS imaging reveals acute somatic and dendritic damage during excitotoxic stress that can be monitored across slices of brain tissue in real time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/nimg.1999.0473

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jarvis, C. R., Lilge, L., Vipond, G. J., & Andrew, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-10
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
357-372
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075350214
Cited by
58
References
58
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Advanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Keywords
intrinsic optical signals, excitotoxicity, NMDA, glutamate receptor agonists, hippocampal slices, CA1 region, calcein fluorescence, optical transmittance, light scattering, neuronal swelling, dendritic morphology, glutamate analogues
MeSH terms
Animals, Fluoresceins, Fluorescent Dyes, Furosemide, Hippocampus, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Microscopy, Fluorescence, Neurons, Neurotoxins, N-Methylaspartate, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Pyramidal Cells, Rats, In Vitro Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review