4.4 Article

Method of euthanasia affects amygdala plasticity in horizontal brain slices from mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 201, 期 2, 页码 340-345

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.08.022

关键词

Decapitation; Anesthesia; Isoflurane; Brain slices; Plasticity; Amygdala

资金

  1. DFG [Al 342/12-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An important consideration in any terminal experiment is the method used for euthanizing animals. Although the prime consideration is that the method is humane, some methods can have a dramatic impact on experimental outcomes. The standard inhalant anesthetic for experiments in brain slices is isoflurane, which replaced the flammable ethers used in the pioneer days of surgery. To our knowledge, there are no data available evaluating the effects of the method of euthanasia on plasticity changes in brain slices. Here, we compare the magnitude of long-term potentiation (LIP) and long-term depression (LTD) in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) after euthanasia following either ether or isoflurane anesthesia, as well as in mice decapitated without anesthesia. We found no differences in input-output curves using different methods of euthanasia. The LIP magnitude did not differ between ether and normal isoflurane anesthesia. After deep isoflurane anesthesia LIP induced by high frequency stimulation of cortical or intranuclear afferents was significantly reduced compared to ether anesthesia. In contrast to ether anesthesia and decapitation without anesthesia, the low frequency stimulation of cortical afferents induced a reliable LA-LTD after deep isoflurane anesthesia. Low frequency stimulation of intranuclear afferents only caused LTD after pretreatment with ether anesthesia. The results demonstrate that the method of euthanasia can influence brain plasticity for hours at least in the interface chamber. Therefore, the method of euthanasia is an important consideration when brain plasticity will be evaluated. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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