Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 26;13:612856. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.612856

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Functional repair of neuronal networks in the ischemic cortex. The Multi-Electrode Array (MEA) recording was performed to detect neuronal connections and functional activities in the sensorimotor cortex of the brain sliced 42 days after stroke. (A) Photos of brain slices and locations of 59 recording electrodes (red cross) crossing the six cortical layers (I, II/III, IV, V, and VI) near the ischemic core or the similar area of the sham recording. The shock sign indicates the location of the stimulation electrode and red cross indicates the electrodes or area where evoked EPSPs can be recorded. (B) Heat maps of evoked EPSPs showing the location and intensity of the response. Non-response areas are shown in blue color, and responsive areas of evoked EPSPs are shown in a yellow to red spectrum according to the response probability normalized to sham controls. After a stroke, the EPSP response likelihood was significantly reduced or even disappeared in II/III, IV, V, and VI cortical layers (n = 4–5 animals in each group, *p < 0.05, vehicle vs. sham controls, the Chi-square test). In recordings from slices subjected to ND1 transduction, there were more responsive areas (e.g., layer II/III) and the response probability of EPSPs was significantly greater than that in stroke controls (n = 4–5 animals in each group; #p < 0.05 vs. stroke controls, the Chi-square test). (C) Representative recordings of the pair-pulse facilitation. (D–F) Quantified data summarized from the pulse facilitation recording in different cortical layers. The amplitude of the first EPSPs was significantly smaller compared to sham control and it was restored in ND1-treated slices [(D) F(2,561) = 8.8, (E) F(2,352) = 3.3, (F) F(2,1173) = 89.7, *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc]. (G–I) The ratio of the second to first EPSPs was significantly larger after stroke, while the ND1 treatment returned the ratio to the normal level. N = 4–5 per group, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001 vs. sham or stroke controls [(G) F(2,91) = 10.2, (H) F(2,68) = 5.2, (I) F(2,189) = 16.8, *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc].