Bulk flow of cerebrospinal fluid observed in periarterial spaces is not an artifact of injection

  1. Aditya Raghunandan
  2. Antonio Ladron-de-Guevara
  3. Jeffrey Tithof
  4. Humberto Mestre
  5. Ting Du
  6. Maiken Nedergaard
  7. John H Thomas
  8. Douglas H Kelley  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Rochester, United States
  2. University of Rochester Medical Center, United States
  3. University of Minnesota, United States

Abstract

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flowing through periarterial spaces is integral to the brain's mechanism for clearing metabolic waste products. Experiments that track tracer particles injected into the cisterna magna of mouse brains have shown evidence of pulsatile CSF flow in perivascular spaces surrounding pial arteries, with a bulk flow in the same direction as blood flow. However, the driving mechanism remains elusive. Several studies have suggested that the bulk flow might be an artifact, driven by the injection itself. Here, we address this hypothesis with new in vivo experiments where tracer particles are injected into the cisterna magna using a dual-syringe system, with simultaneous injection and withdrawal of equal amounts of fluid. This method produces no net increase in CSF volume and no significant increase in intracranial pressure. Yet, particle-tracking reveals flows that are consistent in all respects with the flows observed in earlier experiments with single-syringe injection.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed for this study are included in the manuscript. Source data files have been provided for Figures 4a, 4d, 4e, and 5i.The particle-tracking Matlab code used in this study is available in the public domain GitLab repository found here: https://gitlab-public.circ.rochester.edu/araghuna/bulk-flow-is-not-an-artifact_raghunandan_et_al_2021.git

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Aditya Raghunandan

    Mechanical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1938-0184
  2. Antonio Ladron-de-Guevara

    Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jeffrey Tithof

    Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2083-0901
  4. Humberto Mestre

    Center for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5876-5397
  5. Ting Du

    Center for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Maiken Nedergaard

    Center for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. John H Thomas

    Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Douglas H Kelley

    Mechanical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, United States
    For correspondence
    d.h.kelley@rochester.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9658-2954

Funding

National Institutes of Health (RF1AG057575)

  • Maiken Nedergaard
  • John H Thomas
  • Douglas H Kelley

Army Research Office (MURI W911NF1910280)

  • Antonio Ladron-de-Guevara
  • Humberto Mestre
  • Maiken Nedergaard
  • John H Thomas
  • Douglas H Kelley

Burroughs Wellcome Fund (Career Award at the Scientific Interface)

  • Jeffrey Tithof

The funding agencies did not influence study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Claire Wyart, Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, France

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were approved and conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations stipulated by theUniversity Committee on Animal Resources of the University of Rochester Medical Center (Protocol No. 2011-023), certifiedby Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.

Version history

  1. Received: December 20, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 8, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 9, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 19, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Raghunandan et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,359
    Page views
  • 314
    Downloads
  • 38
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Aditya Raghunandan
  2. Antonio Ladron-de-Guevara
  3. Jeffrey Tithof
  4. Humberto Mestre
  5. Ting Du
  6. Maiken Nedergaard
  7. John H Thomas
  8. Douglas H Kelley
(2021)
Bulk flow of cerebrospinal fluid observed in periarterial spaces is not an artifact of injection
eLife 10:e65958.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65958

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65958

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.