Low-Intensity Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Improves Abnormal Visual Cortical Circuit Topography and Upregulates BDNF in Mice

Makowiecki, Kalina; Harvey, Alan R.; Sherrard, Rachel M.; Rodger, Jennifer

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0723-14.2014

Cited by 112 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

143

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on previous in vivo parameters (Rodger et al, 2012; Makowiecki et al, 2014), we aimed to obtain a maximal magnetic field strength of 10 mT at the target tissue, with a rise-time of less than 100 μs and pulse length of 300 μs (Grehl et al, 2015). Because pulse shape alters the efficiency of neuromodulation (Goetz et al, 2016), we used a symmetric trapezoidal pulse with the same rate of current rise-and fall, in keeping with LFMS in humans (Rohan et al, 2014).…”

Section: Methods and Results: Stimulation Device Design Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Newer low- or pulsed-field magnetic stimulation (LFMS, PMF) delivers diffuse low-intensity stimuli (μT-mT range, E ≤ 1 V/m) that are also biologically effective: modifying cortical function (Capone et al, 2009; Robertson et al, 2010), brain oscillations (Cook et al, 2004; Modolo et al, 2013) and metabolism (Volkow et al, 2010), as well as neurological dysfunction (Martiny et al, 2010; Rohan et al, 2014). We have combined these two approaches creating a small rodent coil to deliver focal low-intensity magnetic stimulation (LI-rTMS), and found that 2 weeks of LI-rTMS can reorganize neural circuits (Rodger et al, 2012; Makowiecki et al, 2014). However, although LFMS now forms an additional tool for NIBS therapies (Shafi et al, 2014), the mechanisms underlying the effects of low intensity magnetic stimulation remain ill-defined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, we have built a device that applies LI-rMS at a range of frequencies to hindbrain explants containing a model of axonal injury and repair, the lesioned olivocerebellar path (Chedotal et al, 1997; Letellier et al, 2009). We use stimulation at an intensity that alters intracellular calcium and gene expression (Mattsson and Simkó, 2012; Grehl et al, 2015), provides neuroprotection (Yang et al, 2012) and reorganizes neural circuits in vivo (Rodger et al, 2012; Makowiecki et al, 2014). The wide range of parameters controlled by our fully automated magnetic stimulator and coil system will facilitate comparison of different stimulation protocols in a range of in vitro models, contributing to the optimisation of focal low-intensity NIBS application to the clinic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In vitro Magnetic Stimulation: A Simple Stimulation Device to Deliver Defined Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields

Grehl

Martina

Goyenvalle

et al. 2016

Front. Neural Circuits

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) by electromagnetic fields appears to benefit human neurological and psychiatric conditions, although the optimal stimulation parameters and underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Although, in vitro studies have begun to elucidate cellular mechanisms, stimulation is delivered by a range of coils (from commercially available human stimulation coils to laboratory-built circuits) so that the electromagnetic fields induced within the tissue to produce the reported effects are ill-defined. Here, we develop a simple in vitro stimulation device with plug-and-play features that allow delivery of a range of stimulation parameters. We chose to test low intensity repetitive magnetic stimulation (LI-rMS) delivered at three frequencies to hindbrain explant cultures containing the olivocerebellar pathway. We used computational modeling to define the parameters of a stimulation circuit and coil that deliver a unidirectional homogeneous magnetic field of known intensity and direction, and therefore a predictable electric field, to the target. We built the coil to be compatible with culture requirements: stimulation within an incubator; a flat surface allowing consistent position and magnetic field direction; location outside the culture plate to maintain sterility and no heating or vibration. Measurements at the explant confirmed the induced magnetic field was homogenous and matched the simulation results. To validate our system we investigated biological effects following LI-rMS at 1 Hz, 10 Hz and biomimetic high frequency, which we have previously shown induces neural circuit reorganization. We found that gene expression was modified by LI-rMS in a frequency-related manner. Four hours after a single 10-min stimulation session, the number of c-fos positive cells increased, indicating that our stimulation activated the tissue. Also, after 14 days of LI-rMS, the expression of genes normally present in the tissue was differentially modified according to the stimulation delivered. Thus we describe a simple magnetic stimulation device that delivers defined stimulation parameters to different neural systems in vitro. Such devices are essential to further understanding of the fundamental effects of magnetic stimulation on biological tissue and optimize therapeutic application of human NIBS.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Results: Stimulation Device Design Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vitro Magnetic Stimulation: A Simple Stimulation Device to Deliver Defined Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields

Grehl

Martina

Goyenvalle

et al. 2016

Front. Neural Circuits

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies all report significant MEP suppression at the upper end of the IO curve (150 -170% RMT) following low frequency rTMS (1 Hz) (Gangitano et al 2002;Hortobagyi et al 2009;Muellbacher et al 2000). Pharmacological studies show that both cTBS and 1 Hz rTMS induce NMDA receptor-dependant LTD-like plasticity (Chen et al 1997;Huang et al 2007), albeit via the modulation of different cortical circuits; studies recording descending volleys from the epidural space show that cTBS primarily suppresses the I1 wave (Di Lazzaro et al 2005), while 1 Hz rTMS primarily suppresses late I waves (Hill et al 1996;Makowiecki et al 2014). The current results suggest that the upper end of the MEP IO curve is optimal for probing cTBS-induced LTD-like plasticity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Inter- and intra-subject variability of motor cortex plasticity following continuous theta-burst stimulation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is less likely that action potentials will be induced at this field strength but low-intensity magnetic stimulation has been shown to affect neuronal morphology, development and survival, probably due to release of calcium ions from intracellular stores (Rodger et al . 2012; Makowiecki et al . 2014; Grehl et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple blocks of intermittent and continuous theta‐burst stimulation applied via transcranial magnetic stimulation differently affect sensory responses in rat barrel cortex

Thimm

Funke

2015

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cortical sensory processing varies with cortical state and the balance of inhibition to excitation. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to modulate human cortical excitability. In a rat model, we recently showed that intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) applied to the corpus callosum, to activate primarily supragranular cortical pyramidal cells but fewer subcortical neurons, strongly reduced the cortical expression of parvalbumin (PV), indicating reduced activity of fast-spiking interneurons. Here, we used the well-studied rodent barrel cortex system to test how iTBS and continuous TBS (cTBS) modulate sensory responses evoked by either single or double stimuli applied to the principal (PW) and/or adjacent whisker (AW) in urethane-anaesthetized rats. Compared to sham stimulation, iTBS but not cTBS particularly enhanced late (>18 ms) response components of multi-unit spiking and local field potential responses in layer 4 but not the very early response (<18 ms). Similarly, only iTBS diminished the suppression of the second response evoked by paired PW or AW–PW stimulation at 20 ms intervals. The effects increased with each of the five iTBS blocks applied. With cTBS a mild effect similar to that of iTBS was first evident after 4–5 stimulation blocks. Enhanced cortical c-Fos and zif268 expression but reduced PV and GAD67 expression was found only after iTBS, indicating increased cortical activity due to lowered inhibition. We conclude that iTBS but less cTBS may primarily weaken a late recurrent-type cortical inhibition mediated via a subset of PV+ interneurons, enabling stronger late response components believed to contribute to the perception of sensory events.

show abstract

Low-Intensity Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Improves Abnormal Visual Cortical Circuit Topography and Upregulates BDNF in Mice

Cited by 112 publications

References 99 publications

In vitro Magnetic Stimulation: A Simple Stimulation Device to Deliver Defined Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields

In vitro Magnetic Stimulation: A Simple Stimulation Device to Deliver Defined Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields

Inter- and intra-subject variability of motor cortex plasticity following continuous theta-burst stimulation

Multiple blocks of intermittent and continuous theta‐burst stimulation applied via transcranial magnetic stimulation differently affect sensory responses in rat barrel cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About