ArticlePloS one2022
Influence of neurovascular anatomy on perforation site in different mouse strains using the filament perforation model for induction of subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization and evaluation of an experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage model in mice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Simple procedure for assessing diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage successfully created using filament perforation method in mice.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFilament perforation is a widely-used method to induce subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) in mice. Whereas the perforation site has been assumed to be in the branching of middle cerebral artery (MCA) and anterior cerebral artery (ACA), we recently observed more proximal perforations.
methodsFilament perforation was performed in CD1- (n = 10) and C57Bl/6N-mice (n = 9) ex vivo. The filament was left in place and the perforation site was microscopically assessed. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was performed in CD1- (n = 9) and C57Bl/6J-mice (n = 29) and anatomical differences of the internal carotid artery (ICA) were determined.
resultsWhereas in C57Bl/6N-mice perforation occurred in the proximal intracranial ICA in 89% (n = 8), in CD1-mice the perforation site was in the proximal ICA in 50% (n = 5), in the branching between MCA and ACA in 40% (n = 4), and in the proximal ACA in 10% (n = 1). DSA revealed a stronger angulation (p<0.001) of the ICA in CD1-mice (163.5±2.81°) compared to C57Bl/6J-mice (124.5±5.49°). Body weight and ICA-angle showed no significant correlation in C57Bl/6J- (r = -0.06, pweight/angle = 0.757) and CD1-mice (r = -0.468, pweight/angle = 0.242).
conclusionFilament perforation in mice occurs not only at the hitherto presumed branching between MCA and ACA, but seems to depend on mouse strain and anatomy as the proximal intracranial ICA may also be perforated frequently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.