The model group shows a higher Longa’s score relative to the sham group (p < 0.001). The EA group shows a significantly lower Longa’s score relative to the model group (p < 0.05). ***p < 0.001 #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group).|@|~(^,^)~|@|Paw-floor-contact force in a colored 3D model to show the load changes experienced by the lower bearing. The sham group shows a stronger paw-braced force. Stereoscopic images show the height difference between the force isometric lines as large and circularly closed, which means the center of the paw and toes can be distinguished as the force is centripetally distributed. The model group shows a much weaker paw-braced force. There is no clear hierarchy between the force isometric lines and the lack of complete circular pattern, hence we could not distinguish the paw center from the tip of the tows. The EA group shows an enhanced paw-braced force relative to the model group. Its force isometric lines become rounder and more centralized. The color ranged from blue to green to yellow to red, indicating bearing strength from weak to strong. n = 6 rats for each group.|@|~(^,^)~|@|Colored pawprint marks can visualize the load changes after EA treatment to MCAO/R rat model. The sham group: pawprints in maximal contact and intensity. The model group: pawprint can hardly be recognized and the intensity is minimal. The EA group: pawprints are coherent with recognizable contacts. Color marks: ① blue for right forepaw; ② purple for right hind paw; ③ yellow for left forepaw; ④ green for left hind paw; n = 6 rats for each group.|@|~(^,^)~|@|EA’s effect on the gait dynamics of MCAO/R rats. (A) The effect of EA at the DU20/EX-HN3/ST36 acupoints on the ipsilateral (left) paw-floor-contact area. The sham group (A, left) shows a smaller maximum forepaw-floor-contact area relative to the model group (p < 0.01), whereas the EA group (A, left) shows a forepaw-floor-contact area relative to the model group (p < 0.01). The sham group (A, right) shows a maximum hind paw-floor-contact area relative to the model group (p < 0.05); whereas, the EA group (A, right) shows a hind paw-floor-contact area relative to the model group but has no significant difference (p > 0.05). **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group. (B) The EA group’s effect on the MCMI of the ipsilateral (left) paws of MCAO/R rats. The sham group (B, left) shows a strong forepaw-MCMI relative to the model group (p < 0.01). The EA group (B, left) shows a stronger forepaw-MCMI relative to the model group (p < 0.05). The sham group (B, right) shows a strong hind paw-MCMI relative to the model group (p < 0.01), whereas the EA group (B, right) shows a better hind paw-MCMI relative to the model group (p < 0.05). **p < 0.01, #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group. (C) The EA group’s effect on the stride length of the ipsilateral (left) paws of MCAO/R rats. The sham group (C, left) shows a longer forepaw-stride-length relative to the model group (p < 0.01), whereas The EA group (C, left) shows a better forepaw-stride-length relative to the model group (p < 0.05). The sham group (C, right) shows a longer hind paw-stride-length relative to the model group (p < 0.01), whereas, the EA group (C, right) shows a better hind paw-stride-length relative to the model group (p < 0.01). **p < 0.01, #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group. (D) The EA group’s effect on the swing time of the ipsilateral l (left) paws of MCAO/R rats. The sham group shows a shorter forepaw swing time relative to the model group (p < 0.001). The EA group shows a shorter forepaw swing time relative to the model group (p < 0.05). ***p < 0.001, #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group. (E) The EA group’s effect on the swing speed of the ipsilateral (left) paws of MCAO/R rats. The sham group shows a faster forepaw swing speed relative to the model group (p < 0.001). The EA group shows a better forepaw swing speed relative to the model group (p < 0.05). ***p < 0.001, #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group.|@|~(^,^)~|@|HE staining of the ischemic penumbra (magnification × 20). The sham group shows clear and orderly structured morphological layers with no necrotic nerve cells. Edema, degeneration, atrophy, and necrosis of the nerve cells with increased intercellular spacing are seen in the model group. The EA group shows an improved morphological and structural disorder of brain tissues. Color marks: ① bluish-purple for nucleus; ② red for cytoplasm. n = 6 rats for each group.|@|~(^,^)~|@|EA treatment improved GFAP content (magnification × 200). (A) Immunohistochemical staining of AS/GFAP expression in the cortex issues. AS can be seen in all of our cortex tissue samples. The sham group shows thin protrusions of the AS fibers with shallow staining. Compared with the sham group, the model group shows an enlarged AS cell body with increased protrusions and deepened staining. The EA group shows the increased expression of GFAP and the AS arrangement appears denser and more deeply stained (n = 6 rats for each group). (B) The GFAP content in the ischemic penumbra. The sham group shows a low GFAP content. The model group shows an increased GFAP content (p < 0.01) relative to the sham group. The EA group shows further increases in GFAP and AS (p < 0.05) relative to the model group. **p < 0.001, #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group. (C) The serum GFAP content. The sham group shows a low GFAP content. The model group shows increased GFAP but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). The EA group shows further increases in GFAP and AS (p < 0.01) relative to the model group. ##p < 0.01; n = 6 rats for each group.|@|~(^,^)~|@|PI3K expression observed by immunohistochemistry (magnification × 200). (A) The sham group with some PI3K positive cells. The model Group shows an increased number of PI3K positive cells. The EA group shows more PI3K positive cells than the model group (n = 6 rats for each group). (B) The mean optical density of the PI3k positive cells. The model group shows a high expression of the PI3K protein relative to the sham group (not statistically significant). The EA group shows a higher expression of the PI3K protein relative to the model group (p < 0.05). #p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group.|@|~(^,^)~|@|Expression of AKT and p-AKT were detected by WB. (A) The sham group shows the blotting of the AKT proteins, while the p-AKT proteins were narrow and less expressed. The model group shows an increased expression of AKT and p-AKT. The EA group shows a higher expression of AKT and p-AKT relative to the model group (n = 6 rats for each group). (B, C) The relative expression levels of the AKT and p-AKT proteins. The model group (B) shows a high expression of the AKT and p-AKT proteins when compared to the sham group (p < 0.05). The EA group (B) shows a higher expression of the AKT and p-AKT protein relative to the model group (p < 0.05). The model group (C) shows a high expression of the AKT and p-AKT proteins relative to the sham group (p < 0.05). The EA group (C) shows a higher expression of the AKT and p-AKT proteins relative to the model group (p < 0.01). (B) AKT/GAPDH, (C) p-AKT/GAPDH; ##p < 0.01, #p < 0.05, *p < 0.05; n = 6 rats for each group.
© J Acupunct Meridian Stud
