Scanning Ultrasound (SUS) Causes No Changes to Neuronal Excitability and Prevents Age-Related Reductions in Hippocampal CA1 Dendritic Structure in Wild-Type Mice
Open accessAbstract
Scanning ultrasound (SUS) is a noninvasive approach that has recently been shown to ameliorate histopathological changes and restore memory functions in an Alzheimer's disease mouse model. Although no overt neuronal damage was reported, the short- and long-term effects of SUS on neuronal excitability and dendritic tree morphology had not been investigated. To address this, we performed patch-clamp recordings from hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons in wild-type mice 2 and 24 hours after a single SUS treatment, and one week and 3 months after six weekly SUS treatments, including sham treatments as controls. In both treatment regimes, no changes in CA1 neuronal excitability were observed in SUS-treated neurons when compared to sham-treated neurons at any time-point. For the multiple treatment groups, we also determined the dendritic morphology and spine densities of the neurons from which we had recorded. The apical trees of sham-treated neurons were reduced at the 3 month time-point when compared to one week; however, surprisingly, no longitudinal change was detected in the apical dendritic trees of SUS-treated neurons. In contrast, the length and complexity of the basal dendritic trees were not affected by SUS treatment at either time-point. The apical dendritic spine densities were reduced, independent of the treatment group, at 3 months compared to one week. Collectively, these data suggest that ultrasound can be employed to prevent an age-associated loss of dendritic structure without impairing neuronal excitability.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Complement and microglia mediate early synapse loss in Alzheimer mouse models
Hong, S., Beja-Glasser, V. F., Nfonoyim, B. M., Frouin, A., Li, S., Ramakrishnan, S., Merry, K. M., Shi, Q., Rosenthal, A., Barres, B. A., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad8373 · Cited by 3,343 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In fact, a recent study has reported that microgliamediate synapse loss at an early time-point in ADmouse models [37].”
BackgroundThe essential role of hippocampal CA1 NMDA receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity in spatial memory.
Tsien, J. Z., Huerta, P. T., & Tonegawa, S. (1996) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81827-9 · Cited by 1,782 · see citing works
Microglia: Dynamic Mediators of Synapse Development and Plasticity
Wu, Y., Dissing-Olesen, L., MacVicar, B. A., & Stevens, B. (2015) · Trends in Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.it.2015.08.008 · Cited by 661 · see citing works
Šišková, Z., Justus, D., Kaneko, H., Friedrichs, D., Henneberg, N., Beutel, T., Pitsch, J., Schoch, S., Becker, A., von der Kammer, H., et al. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.024 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Microglial displacement of inhibitory synapses provides neuroprotection in the adult brain
Chen, Z., Jalabi, W., Hu, W., Park, H.-J., Gale, J. T., Kidd, G. J., Bernatowicz, R., Gossman, Z. C., Chen, J. T., Dutta, R., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5486 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Burgess, A., Dubey, S., Yeung, S., Hough, O., Eterman, N., Aubert, I., & Hynynen, K. (2014) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.14140245 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The blood-brain barrier: Physiology and strategies for drug delivery
Pandit, R., Chen, L., & Götz, J. (2020) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2019.11.009 · Cited by 651 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hatch, R. J., Leinenga, G., & Götz, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Götz, Jürgen
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-10-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e0164278
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5058555
- OpenAlex
- W2530322717
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP130101932)
- National Health and Medical Research Council (AU) (GNT1037746, GNT1003150)
- Australian Research Council Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities scheme (LE100100074)
- Estate of Dr Clem Jones AO
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- neuronal excitability, CA1 pyramidal neurons, dendritic morphology, dendritic spine density, Alzheimer's disease, wild-type mice
- MeSH terms
- Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Brain, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Ultrasonography, Patch-Clamp Techniques, Dendritic Spines, Mice, CA1 Region, Hippocampal, 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