Transient Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion with an Intraluminal Suture Enables Reproducible Induction of Ischemic Stroke in Mice.

Ischemic stroke is a leading cause of mortality and chronic disability worldwide, underscoring the need for reliable and accurate animal models to study this disease's pathology, molecular mechanisms of injury, and treatment approaches. As most clinical strokes occur in regions supplied by the middle cerebral artery (MCA), several experimental models have been developed to simulate an MCA occlusion (MCAO), including transcranial MCAO, micro- or macro-sphere embolism, thromboembolisation, photothrombosis, Endothelin-1 injection, and - the most common method for ischemic stroke induction in murine models - intraluminal MCAO. In the intraluminal MCAO model, the external carotid artery (ECA) is permanently ligated, after which a partially-coated monofilament is inserted and advanced proximally to the common carotid artery (CCA) bifurcation, before being introduced into the internal carotid artery (ICA). The coated tip of the monofilament is then advanced to the origin of the MCA and secured for the duration of occlusion. With respect to other MCAO models, this model offers enhanced reproducibility regarding infarct volume and cognitive/functional deficits, and does not require a craniotomy. Here, we provide a detailed protocol for the surgical induction of unilateral transient ischemic stroke in mice, using the intraluminal MCAO model. Graphic abstract: Overview of the intraluminal monofilament method for transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) in mouse.

Test publishers' perspective on "an updated meta-analysis": comment on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012).

Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau's (2012) meta-analysis of pre-employment integrity test results confirmed that such tests are meaningfully related to counterproductive work behavior. The article also offered some cautionary conclusions, which appear to stem from the limited scope of the authors' focus and the specific research procedures used. Issues discussed in this commentary include the following: (a) test publishers' provision of studies for meta-analytic consideration; (b) errors and questions in the coding of statistics from past studies; (c) debatable corrections for unreliable criterion measures; (d) exclusion of laboratory, contrasted-groups, unit-level, and time-series studies of counterproductive behavior; (e) under-emphasis on the prediction of counterproductive workplace behaviors compared with job performance, training outcomes, and turnover; (f) overlooking the industry practice of deploying integrity scales with other valid predictors of employee outcomes; (g) implication that integrity test publishers produce biased research results; (h) incomplete presentation of integrity tests' resistance to faking; and (i) omission of data indicating applicants' favorable response to integrity tests, the tests' lack of adverse impact, and the positive business impact of integrity testing. This commentary, therefore, offers an alternate perspective, addresses omissions and apparent inaccuracies, and urges a return to the use of diverse methodologies to evaluate the validity of integrity tests and other psychometric instruments.