4.5 Article

Differential effect of low doses of intracerebroventricular corticotropin-releasing factor in forced swimming test

Journal

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 519-525

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0091-3057(00)00384-1

Keywords

corticotropin-releasing factor; forced swimming test; behavioral adaptation; learning and memory processes; stress; coping behavior; antidepressant drug screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, we studied the effect of low doses of intracerebroventricular corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) in six sessions of forced swimming test (FST). When CRF (0.01 and 0.1 mug) was administered pre-test, results showed that the 0.1-mug dose significantly increased swimming in SESSION2, SESSION3 and SESSION4, while the 0.01-mug dose proved ineffective. When CRF (0.1 and 0.03 mug) was administered post-test to evaluate retention of swimming response, the dose of 0.1 mug impaired retention, while the dose of 0.03 mug improved it, although these effects only reached significance in SESSION2. In an additional session (SESSION6), testing long-term retention of this swimming response, the 0.1-mug dose significantly impaired retention, whereas the 0.03-mug dose proved ineffective. A high dose of CRF (1 mug) was also included as a control of previous results [Garcia-Lecumberri C, Ambrosio E. Role of corticotropin-releasing factor in forced swimming test. Eur J Pharmacol 1998;343:17-26]. In all the FST sessions, this high dose increased swimming when administered pre-test, while impairing retention when administered post-test. Preliminary data obtained with low doses of CRF suggest that a differential effect on retention of swimming response seems to exist depending on the dose, whereas a high dose of CRF clearly impairs retention. The role of CRF in learning and memory processes in FST is discussed. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. 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