Brain MR Imaging of intracerebral hemorrhagic rats after alcohol consumption


Abstract

Background. Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in rats with acute alcohol intoxication (AAI) induces greater brain injury and neurological impairment than those without AAI. It is not clear whether chronic alcohol consumption (CAC) may cause similar outcomes in ICH rats. Methods. Sixteen Sprague-Dawley male rats were divided into two groups: CAC group (n = 8) fed with 10% alcohol in drinking water for 4 weeks, and Control group (n = 8) fed with water only. ICH was induced by collagenase infusion into the striata. Coronal T1-weighted imaging, T2-weighted imaging, T2*-weighted imaging, and diffusion-weighted imaging were generated with a 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner to investigate the changes of hemorrhagic volume and edema throughout the injury and recovery stages of ICH. Results. The hematoma volume was larger in the CAC group than in the control group (P < 0.001). These findings, however, cannot explain the findings that at post-ICH, progressive edema formation and neurological impairment were not significantly different between two groups. T2-weighted imaging is ideal for monitoring the hematoma volume in rats. Discussion. CAC induces larger hematoma volume in rats with ICH, but brain edema and neurological impairment are not correlated to CAC. The findings may suggest the ICH-induced neurological impairments relate more to the brain edema formation than hematoma enlargement.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.