4.5 Article

Inverse correlation of brain and blood BDNF levels in a genetic rat model of depression

期刊

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1461145709990721

关键词

BDNF; blood; correlation; frontal cortex; hippocampus

资金

  1. Danish Research Council, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
  2. Augustinus Foundation
  3. Biomedical Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is accumulating evidence that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) plays a critical role in the pathophysiology of depression. Decreased serum levels have been reported in major depression, and a correlation between BDNF reduction and the severity of the disease was found. Moreover, in post-mortem hippocampal tissue, increased levels of BDNF immunoreactivity have been reported in subjects treated with antidepressants compared to untreated subjects. These findings indicate parallel changes in brain and serum BDNF levels during depression. BDNF has been measured in selected brain areas in several animal models. In investigations between Hinders Sensitive Line (FSL) and Flinders Resistant Line (FRL) rats, a genetic rat model of depression, no differences were found in BDNF levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus, areas believed to be core brain regions in depression. However, to our knowledge brain and serum BDNF levels have never been reported in parallel for any psychiatric disease model. Therefore, we examined the levels of BDNF in whole blood, serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), hippocampus, and frontal cortex in male FSL and FRL rats. BDNF levels in serum and whole blood of FSL rats were significantly increased compared to FRL rats. In contrast, in the hippocampus the BDNF level was significantly decreased in FSL compared to FRL rats while no differences were found in the frontal cortex and CSF. The differential regulation of the BDNF levels in hippocampus, serum, and whole blood hi FSL/FRL rats adds to the hypothesis that neurotrophic factors are related to the pathophysiology of depression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据