Models of hemorrhagic shock: differences in the physiological and inflammatory response.

Introduction: The hemorrhagic shock (HS) model is commonly used to initiate a systemic post-traumatic inflammatory response. Numerous experimental protocols exist and it is unclear how differences in these models affect the immune response making it difficult to compare results between studies. The aim of this study was to compare the inflammatory response of different established protocols for volume-controlled shock in a murine model.

Inhalative vs. systemic IL-10 administration: differences in the systemic inflammatory response and end-organ inflammation following hemorrhagic shock.

Interleukin-10 is known to modulate the systemic inflammatory response after trauma. This study investigates differences in the systemic and end-organ inflammation in animals treated with either inhalative or systemic IL-10 after experimental hemorrhagic shock (HS). Pressure controlled HS was performed in C57/BL6 mice for 1.

Inhalative IL-10 attenuates pulmonary inflammation following hemorrhagic shock without major alterations of the systemic inflammatory response.

Several studies report immunomodulatory effects of endogenous IL-10 after trauma. The present study investigates the effect of inhalative IL-10 administration on systemic and pulmonary inflammation in hemorrhagic shock. Male C57/BL6 mice (8 animals per group) were subjected to pressure-controlled hemorrhagic shock for 1.

Cognitive levels of performance account for hemispheric lateralisation effects in dyslexic and normally reading children.

Recent theories of developmental dyslexia explain reading deficits in terms of deficient phonological awareness, attention, visual and auditory processing, or automaticity. Since dyslexia has a neurobiological basis, the question arises how the reader's proficiency in these cognitive variables affects the brain regions involved in visual word recognition. This question was addressed in two fMRI experiments with 19 normally reading children (Experiment 1) and 19 children with dyslexia (Experiment 2).