ArticleThe Journal of physiology2026
Impaired peri-infarct long-term potentiation in anaesthetized rats suggests alternative mechanisms of post-stroke recovery.
Article in The Journal of physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early after stroke, a period of heightened plasticity in the peri-infarct cortex is thought to provide the physiological substrate for functional motor recovery through increased expression of long-term potentiation (LTP). Previous slice electrophysiology studies on the capacity for LTP after stroke reported conflicting results. Slice preparation could have influenced the results by disrupting neuromodulatory processes known to be altered after stroke. Therefore, whether LTP can be induced in the peri-infarct cortex remains to be elucidated. In this study, we assessed synaptic transmission, short-term plasticity and LTP, operationalized as increased evoked field potentials, in 15 rats under urethane anaesthesia (11 with focal stroke to the primary motor cortex, and four sham-operated controls). Rats were tested one or two weeks after stroke using a minimally perturbed in vivo LTP induction protocol validated in naïve rats. Motor function was evaluated using the cylinder test at baseline and at one or two weeks post-stroke. The results showed a strong reduction of the capacity for LTP in the M1 peri-infarct cortex in comparison with the sham rats. In addition, synaptic transmission was reduced for higher stimulation intensities, and short-term plasticity shifted from facilitation to depression, indicating impaired synaptic function at one and two weeks post-stroke. Behaviourally, the lesioned rats exhibited motor deficits at one week but showed full recovery two weeks post-stroke. The results suggest that both LTP and synaptic transmission are profoundly impaired in the peri-infarct cortex during motor recovery after a stroke in M1. KEY POINTS: Increased expression of LTP in the peri-infarct cortex is thought to support motor recovery after stroke. However, to what extent LTP can be induced in the peri-infarct cortex remains unclear. We investigated whether, and to what extent, LTP can be induced in the peri-infarct cortex after an ischaemic stroke in urethane-anaesthetized rats using a novel stimulation protocol developed in naïve rats. The results show that LTP can be induced in the primary motor cortex (M1) in naïve and sham-operated rats by simultaneously stimulating the ventral tegmental area and M1. One and two weeks after a focal ischaemic stroke, the capacity for LTP induced using this method was strongly reduced in the peri-infarct cortex in recovering rats. Our results suggest that spontaneous recovery is independent of the capacity for LTP in the peri-infarct M1.
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.