4.7 Article

Effects of lorazepam and WAY-200070 in larval zebrafish light/dark choice

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 226-233

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.03.022

关键词

Anxiety; Benzodiazepines; Estrogen receptor beta; Habenula; Zebrafish

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171074]
  2. Pujiang Talent Project [09PJ1401900]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171074]
  4. Pujiang Talent Project [09PJ1401900]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zebrafish larvae spend more time in brightly illuminated area when placed in a light/dark testing environment. Here we report that the anxiolytic drugs lorazepam and diazepam increased the time larval fish spent in the dark compartment in the light/dark test. Lorazepam did not affect the visual induced optokinetic response of larval fish. Gene expression levels of c-fos and crh were significantly increased in the hypothalamus of fish larvae underwent light/dark choice behavior, whilst lorazepam treatment alleviated the increased c-fos and crh expressions. Furthermore, we found estrogen receptor beta gene expression level was increased in fish larvae underwent light/dark choice. We next examined effects of estrogen receptor modulators (estradiol, BPA, PHTPP, and WAY-200070) in the light/dark test. We identified WAY-200070, a highly selective ER beta agonist significantly altered the light/dark choice behavior of zebrafish larvae. Further investigation showed WAY-200070 treatment caused a reduction of crh expression level in the hypothalamus, suggesting activation of ER beta signaling attenuate the stress response. Interestingly, WAY-200070 treatment caused marked increase of c-fos expression in the habenula of fish larvae underwent behavior test. These results suggest WAY-200070 activation of ER beta mediated signaling may regulate anxiety related behavior in zebrafish through modulation of neuronal activity in habenula. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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