Background: Although there have been studies of the genetic risk factors in the development of stroke, there have been few investigations of role of genes in the cerebral response to ischemia. The brain responds to ischemia in a series of reactions that ultimately influence the volume of a stroke that, in general, correlates with disability. We hypothesize that polymorphisms in genes encoding proteins involved in these reactions could act as modifiers of this response and impact stroke volume. One of the pathways participating in the cerebral ischemic response involves reactive oxygen species which can cause oxidative damage to nucleic acids. DNA repair mechanisms are in place to protect against such damage and imply a role for DNA repair genes in the response of the brain to ischemia and are potential candidate genes for further investigation. Methods: We studied two common polymorphisms in the DNA repair gene, XRCC1, C26304T and G28152A, in 134 well characterized patients with non lacunar ischemic strokes. We also performed a case control association study with 113 control patients to assess whether these variants represent risk factors in the development of ischemic stroke. Results: Independent of etiology, the "T" allele of the C26304T polymorphism is significantly associated with larger stroke volumes (T-test analysis, p < 0.044; multivariate regression analysis, beta = 0.23, p < 0.008). In the case control association study, we found that neither of these polymorphisms represented a risk factor for the development of stroke. Conclusion: Our study suggests a major gene effect of the "T" allele of the C26304T polymorphism modulating the cerebral response to ischemia in non lacunar ischemic stroke.

Attempts to personalize aphasia treatment to the extent where it is possible to reliably predict individual response to a particular treatment have yielded inconclusive results. The current study aimed to (i) compare the effects of phonologically versus semantically focussed naming treatment and (ii) examine biographical and neuropsychological baseline factors predictive of response to each treatment. One hundred and four individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia underwent 3 weeks of phonologically focussed treatment and 3 weeks of semantically focussed treatment in an unblinded cross-over design. A linear mixed-effects model was used to compare the effects of treatment type on proportional change in correct naming across groups. Correlational analysis and stepwise regression models were used to examine biographical and neuropsychological predictors of response to phonological and semantic treatment across all participants. Last, chi-square tests were used to explore the association between treatment response and phonological and semantic deficit profiles. Semantically focussed treatment was found to be more effective at the group-level, independently of treatment order (P = 0.041). Overall, milder speech and language impairment predicted good response to semantic treatment (r range: 0.256-0.373) across neuropsychological tasks. The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Spontaneous Speech score emerged as the strongest predictor of semantic treatment response (R ² = 0.188). Severity of stroke symptoms emerged as the strongest predictor of phonological treatment response (R ² = 0.103). Participants who showed a good response to semantic treatment were more likely to present with fluent speech compared to poor responders (P = 0.005), whereas participants who showed a good response to phonological treatment were more likely to present with apraxia of speech (P = 0.020). These results suggest that semantic treatment may be more beneficial to the improvement of naming performance in aphasia than phonological treatment, at the group-level. In terms of personalized predictors, participants with relatively mild impairments and fluent speech responded better to semantic treatment, while phonological treatment benefitted participants with more severe impairments and apraxia of speech.