4.5 Article

STRAIN DIFFERENCES IN PROLIFERATION OF PROGENITOR CELLS IN THE DENTATE GYRUS OF THE ADULT RAT AND THE RESPONSE TO FLUOXETINE ARE DEPENDENT ON CORTICOSTERONE

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 157, Issue 3, Pages 677-682

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.08.072

Keywords

progenitor cells; neurogenesis; hippocampus; strain differences; corticoids

Categories

Funding

  1. King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (Saudi Arabia)
  2. Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the role of differences in adrenal cortical function on the proliferation rate of progenitor cells in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus in adult Sprague-Dawley (SD) and Lister-Hooded (LH) male rats. SD rats had around 60% more cells labeled with Ki67 (an index of mitosis) than LH rats under basal conditions. Bilateral adrenalectomy (ADX) increased levels in both strains, but by unequal amounts, such that post-ADX numbers of Ki67-labeled cells were similar in both strains. Daily injections of 5 mg/kg corticosterone for 7 days reduced levels to similar values in ADX rats of both strains. The activity of progenitor cells in either strain did not respond to daily i.p. injections of fluoxetine (10 mg/kg) for 14 days, but an equivalent dose administered by osmotic minipump stimulated proliferation in both by a similar proportional amount, such that strain differences persisted. S.c. implantation of a corticosterone pellet (75 mg), which flattens the diurnal rhythm in corticosterone, prevented fluoxetine delivered by minipump from activating progenitor cell mitosis in SD rats, as it had in the LH strain in a previous study. These results show that much, if not all, of the marked strain differences between SD and LH rats in progenitor cell activity, and hence rates of neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus may be ascribed to corresponding differences in adrenal cortical activity. (C) 2008 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available