Fig. 3

Minimal histological damage to brain and spinal cord after chronic dural port implantation a Scheme of the sagittal view of the mouse brain and spinal cord area adjacent to the CM of intact and sham-operated mice (top), CDP (middle), and chronic CMc (bottom). Dotted square indicates the areas where the histological appearances are shown in b, c. b, c Histological integrity and astrocyte reactivity two weeks after CDP or chronic CMc implantation compared to the sham-operated mice. (b, top panels) H&E-stained sagittal sections of the BS and spinal cord area adjacent to CM of sham-operated mice, CDP, and chronic CMc. Scale bar, 200 μm. (b, bottom panels) High magnification of the H&E-stained sagittal sections corresponding to the dotted outlined area in the top panels. Scale bar, 50 μm. c GFAP-stained sagittal sections corresponding to the outlined area in the top panels of (b); high magnification of GFAP-positive cells in the areas outlined with white dotted square are shown in insets. Scale bar, 50 μm. d Quantification of GFAP-positive cells in the area corresponding to the dotted outlined area in the top panels of (b). n = 6/group. *p < 0.05 versus naïve and CDP mice. One-way ANOVA and a subsequent Tukey–Kramer test were performed. Data presented are the mean ± SEM. BS brain stem, Cb cerebellum, CDP chronic dural port, CM cisterna magna, CMc cisterna magna cannulation, H&E hematoxylin-eosin, GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein