ArticleBrain communications2026
A minimally invasive, scalable and reproducible neonatal rat model of severe focal brain injury.
Article in Brain communications, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonatal brain injuries, such as stroke, cause focal ischaemic lesions that often result in lifelong neurological disabilities, yet effective treatments remain limited. Early-phase therapeutic screening requires models that can reliably reproduce injury severity while minimising confounding variables, including prolonged or variable anaesthesia, surgical stress, and invasive procedures that themselves affect injury progression. Existing models of neonatal focal ischaemia often exhibit high mortality, technical complexity, and substantial variability in lesion location and volume. As a result, there is a critical need for a rapid, ethically refined, and scalable neonatal model that produces consistent cortical injury suitable for screening neuroprotective, biomaterial-based, and regenerative therapies. We established a minimally invasive photothrombotic ischaemia model in postnatal day 10 rats by administering intraperitoneal Rose Bengal (25, 40, or 60 mg/kg) and activating it with a fixed 10-minute exposure to 565-nm light through the intact scalp and skull. This incision-free protocol allowed a total procedure duration of 19 min. We characterized dose-dependent effects on infarct volume and anatomical distribution, cortical atrophy, ventricular enlargement, apoptosis (cleaved caspase-3), astrocytic and microglial reactivity (glial fibrillary acidic protein, GFAP; ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1, Iba1), and sensorimotor outcomes (wire hang, cylinder rearing, adhesive tape removal) at 1, 7, and 14 days after injury. Additional analyses assessed the reproducibility of lesion size across litters and explored sex-specific differences. A 25 mg/kg dose induced a reliable and well-localized motor cortex infarct with no mortality. Higher doses of Rose Bengal produced proportionally larger infarcts with greater subcortical involvement and more pronounced secondary atrophy. Across all groups, apoptotic signalling and glial reactivity remained elevated through 14 days, indicating persistent tissue injury. Sensorimotor impairments were robust at all stages, with deficits in forepaw use, endurance, and tactile response correlating with lesion volumes in the 25 mg/kg group. No significant sex differences were observed for any histological or behavioural outcomes. This refined neonatal photothrombotic model provides a reproducible, simple, scalable, and ethically optimized platform for inducing severe focal cortical injury. The model's stable injury territory, short, standardized procedure, and consistent functional readouts fill a major gap in current research tools and provide a practical foundation for early-phase testing of neuroprotective and regenerative interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.