Using a common model of transient (90 min.) focal ischemia which results in reliable infarction but minimal mortality (
Memezawa et al., 1992a,
b;
Spratt et al. 2006;
Tsubokawa et al., 2006;
Tsuchiya et al., 2003) in rats, we show here for the first time that MCAO is accompanied not only by long lasting neuroinflammation but also by loss of NMDAR in brain regions extending far beyond the infarct area, including regions contralateral to the lesion. Inflammation is well recognized as an important feature of subacute ischemic stroke in humans (
Emsley el al., 2008). The hallmark of neuroinflammation is activation of glial cells (e.g.
Price et al., 2006) which are known to release toxic substances including glutamate, reactive oxygen species (
Peters et al., 1998) and pro inflammatory cytokines (
Pera et al., 2004;
Emsley et al., 2008). Activated microglia are responsible for increased [
3H]PK11195 binding in lesions where the Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) is intact (
Banati et al., 1997). Our observation of long lasting and widespread increases in [3H]PK11195 binding are in accord with in vivo studies performed in stroke patients (
Gerhard et al. 2000,
2005). Using [
11C]PK11195 and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in patients with ischemic stroke 5–53 days after infarction, these groups reported the prolonged presence of activated microglia in MCA as well as PCA territory infarctions. Similarly,
Price et al. (2006) demonstrated elevated [
11C]PK11195 binding potential in patients scanned 7 to 14 and 25 to 30 days after stroke, with only a small increase in the first 3 days post ictus. The first study to bridge the gap between human PET studies and in vitro autoradiography in animal models was performed by
Rojas et al. (2007), who have used [
11C]PK11195 and [3H]PK11195 in rats 4 and 7 days after MCAO with PET and autoradiography. Both techniques detected a similar pattern of PBR overexpression, mostly limited to the infarcted area, although even at these relatively short times some remote increases were noted. Using longer survival times and a fully quantitative approach, we have been able to show significant increases in PBR in regions not involved in the infarct area as defined on MRI and histology. These results, too, are in line with the relevant human stroke literature showing the increased PK11195 signal spreading to remote and contralateral regions in the subacute, rather than acute phase after ischemia (
Pappata et al., 2000;
Gerhard et al. 2000,
2005). Unlike neuroinflammation, the effect of focal ischemia on NMDA receptors has not been investigated in either humans or animal models, although bilateral reductions in NMDAR density and gene expression were documented in the aftermath of global forebrain ischemia (
Ogawa et al., 1991;
Dalkara et al., 1996;
Liu et al., 2007) and traumatic brain injury (
Miller et al., 1990;
Sihver et al., 2001;
Biegon et al., 2004).
Although neuroinflammation and loss of NMDAR show similar persistence over time in this model, the differences in relative regional intensity and lateralization between the two phenomena suggests that neuroinflammation does not cause the reduction in NMDAR, although the loss of NMDAR may be locally augmented by neuroinflammation. The mechanisms underlying loss of NMDAR after MCAO are not fully understood, but the regional characteristics of this phenomenon as well as published observations from other models of brain injury may offer some clues. In the vicinity of the lesions as well as in remote non-infarcted regions where no cell loss occurs, most notably the contralateral hemisphere, receptor down regulation and reduced gene expression are likely to occur in response to the high levels of agonist (glutamate) released during ischemia in the terminal fields of damaged or hyper-excited neurons (e.g.
Biegon et al., 2004;
Ogawa et al., 1991). Another possible mechanism for loss of NMDAR binding is NMDAR internalization in response to amyloid beta release, which was reported in MCAO rats (
Li et al., 2009;
Snyder et al., 2005). This process may be augmented by neuroinflammation in regions where neuroinflammation and NMDAR coexist, since activated glia are known to release glutamate in addition to other mediators (
Bezzi et al., 2001). In fact, we have found that pure neuroinflammation (injection of LPS into the cisterna magna) results in large reductions of NMDAR density in many brain regions involved in cognitive function (
Biegon et al., 2002) with no apparent cell loss. Down regulation of NMDAR by subtoxic levels of NMDA may even function as a neuroprotective response against glutamate neurotoxicity in regions where no cell loss occurs (
Zhu et al., 2005). While possibly protecting neurons from excitotoxic death, this mechanism may still result in functional deficits in the performance of tasks requiring NMDAR activation.
In infarcted regions, loss of cells expressing NMDAR due to direct excitotoxicity augmented by neuroinflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species is highly likely to contribute further to loss of NMDAR (
Bal-Price et al., 2001;
Bezzi et al., 2001;
Peters et al., 1998;
Schroeter et al., 2009). Such an additive effect may be responsible for the greater loss of NMDAR in the ipsilateral striatum when compared by paired t-test to the contralateral striatum of the same MCAO animals, as reported here.
We found NMDA receptor density decreased bilaterally in several regions which are important for cognitive function. These results are similar to prior findings reported by us and others, demonstrating bilateral NMDAR reduction in response to unilateral head injury (
Biegon et al. 2004;
Miller et al., 1990;
Sihver et al., 2001). These findings support the notion that persistent neuroinflammation and even more importantly, persistent and widespread loss of NMDAR may contribute to cognitive and other neurological deficits in stroke patients which can not be localized to the site of infarction (diaschisis). Further experiments are needed to explore the relationship between NMDAR loss in the reported and additional brain regions (e.g. hippocampus) and cognitive performance in MCAO rats; as well as the possible effect of pharmacological manipulation of NMDAR (
Yaka et al., 2007) and the involvement of changes in NMDAR subunit composition.