Cited by 109Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Principal neuron spiking: neither necessary nor sufficient for cerebral blood flow in rat cerebellum

Thomsen, Kirsten, Offenhauser, Nikolas, Lauritzen, Martin·2004·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

Neuronal activity, cerebral blood flow, and metabolic responses are all strongly coupled, although the mechanisms behind the coupling remain unclear. One of the key questions is whether or not increases in spiking activity in the stimulated neurons are sufficient to drive the activity‐dependent rises in cerebral blood flow (CBF) that form the basis of the signals used in functional neuroimaging such as the blood oxygen level‐dependent (BOLD) signal. To this end the present study examined the effect of enhanced spike activity per se on CBF in rat cerebellar cortex under conditions of disinhibition, achieved by blocking GABA A receptors using either bicuculline or picrotoxin. Purkinje cell spiking activity and local field potentials were recorded by glass microelectrodes, and laser Doppler flowmetry was used to monitor CBF. Disinhibition increased Purkinje cell spiking rate to 200–300% of control without incurring any increase in basal CBF. This demonstrates that increased spike activity per se is not sufficient to affect basal CBF. The neurovascular coupling between excitatory synaptic activity and CBF responses evoked by inferior olive (climbing fibre) stimulation was preserved during disinhibition. Thus, the unchanged basal CBF in the presence of the dramatic rise in Purkinje cell spiking rate was not explained by impaired synaptic activity–CBF coupling. On the basis of our previous and the present studies, we conclude that increased spiking activity of principal neurons is neither sufficient nor necessary to elicit CBF responses and in turn BOLD signals, and that activation‐dependent vascular signals reflect excitatory synaptic activity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jphysiol.2004.068072

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomsen, K., Offenhauser, N., & Lauritzen, M.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10
Volume
560
Issue
1
Pages
181-189
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W1549439691
Cited by
109
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
  • Lundbeckfonden
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
cerebral blood flow, neurovascular coupling, Purkinje cells, cerebellum, disinhibition, GABA-A receptor blockade, bicuculline, picrotoxin, inferior olive, BOLD signal, local field potentials, synaptic activity
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Bicuculline, Cerebellum, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Male, Synaptic Transmission, Picrotoxin, Purkinje Cells, Rats, Wistar, GABA Antagonists, Rats

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