Cited by 74Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoverySpinal Cord Injury ResearchTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Motor recovery and axonal plasticity with short-term amphetamine after stroke

Open access
Papadopoulos, Catherine M., Tsai, Shih-Yen, Guillen, Veronica, Ortega, Juan, Kartje, Gwendolyn L., Wolf, William A.·2009·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— There is considerable debate regarding the efficacy of amphetamine to facilitate motor recovery after stroke or experimental brain injury. Different drug dosing and timing schedules and differing physical rehabilitation strategies may contribute to outcome variability. The present study was designed to ascertain (1) whether short-term amphetamine could induce long-term functional motor recovery in rats after an ischemic lesion modeling stroke in humans; (2) how different levels of physical rehabilitation interact with amphetamine to enhance forelimb-related functional outcome; and (3) whether motor improvement was associated with axonal sprouting from intact corticoefferent pathways originating in the contralesional forelimb motor cortex. Methods— After permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion, rats received vehicle or amphetamine during the first postoperative week (2 mg/kg, subcutaneously on Postoperative Days 2, 5, and 8). In both treatment groups, separate cohorts of rats were exposed to different levels of “physical rehabilitation” represented by a control environment, enriched environment, or enriched environment with additional sessions of focused activity. Skilled forelimb performance was assessed using the forelimb reaching task and ladder rung walk test. Anterograde tracing with biotinylated dextran amine was used to assess new fiber outgrowth to denervated motor areas. Results— All treatment groups showed significant motor improvement as compared with control-housed, vehicle-treated animals. However, animals housed in an enriched environment that received amphetamine paired with focused activity sessions performed significantly better than any other treatment group and was the only group to achieve complete motor recovery (ie, reached preoperative performance) by 8 weeks. This recovery was associated with axonal sprouting into deafferentated subcortical areas from contralesional projection neurons. Conclusions— This study suggests that, after stroke, short-term pairing of amphetamine with sufficiently focused activity is an effective means of inducing long-term improvement in forelimb motor function. The anatomic data suggests that corticoefferent plasticity in the form of axonal sprouting contributes to the maintenance of motor recovery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/strokeaha.108.519769

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Axonal growth responses are relatively uniform across different treatment types, with contralesional sprouting evident after growth factors, anti-NogoA antibodies, neurostimulants, and cell-based therapeutics.

    “Importantly, axonal growth responses are relatively uniform for different types of treatment: contralesional sprouting was evident after delivery of growth factors,19,24 neutralising antibodies directed against the axonal growth inhibitor NogoA,11,17 neurostimulants (eg, amphetamine), 29 and cell-based therapeutics, namely bone-marrow-derived stromal cells12,30 or neural pre cursor cells.15”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Papadopoulos, C. M., Tsai, S.-Y., Guillen, V., Ortega, J., Kartje, G. L., & Wolf, W. A.
Affiliations
Loyola University Medical Center (US)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2009-01
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
294-302
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2125770638
Cited by
74
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 RX000828)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS40960, R01NS040960, R56NS040960)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 44772, R01HD044772)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
amphetamine, motor recovery, axonal sprouting, environmental enrichment, physical rehabilitation, middle cerebral artery occlusion, forelimb function, deafferentation, contralesional motor cortex
MeSH terms
Amphetamines, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Drug Administration Schedule, Efferent Pathways, Forelimb, Male, Motor Cortex, Movement Disorders, Nerve Regeneration, Neuronal Plasticity, Paresis, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function, Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery, Rats, Long-Evans, Growth Cones, Stroke, 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