4.6 Article

Glyoxalase-I mRNA expression and CCK-4 induced panic attacks

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 60-63

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.008

关键词

Glyoxalase-1; CCK-4; Panic disorder; Anxiety; Challenge paradigm

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich [553/543]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: There is evidence that the anti-glycation enzyme glyoxalase-1 (GLO1) may play a role in anxiety-related behaviour. However, discordant findings between GLO1 expression and anxiety-related behaviour have been observed in animal models. Because no data are available on the relation between GLO1 mRNA expression and human anxiety so far, we investigated the expression of GLO1 mRNA in peripheral blood cells in relation to cholecystokinin-tetrapeptide (CCK-4) induced panic anxiety in healthy subjects as an established model of human anxiety in healthy volunteers. Methods: Twenty-three healthy subjects underwent challenge with CCK-4. GLO1 mRNA expression was assessed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction prior to CCK-4 injection. Baseline anxiety was assessed with the State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory (STAI) and panic response was measured with the Panic Symptom Scale (PSS). Results: CCK-4 elicited a marked anxiety response accompanied by a significant increase in heart rate. GLO1 mRNA expression did not correlate with state or trait anxiety nor with severity of CCK-4 induced anxiety. Conclusions: The lack of correlation between GLO1 mRNA expression and CCK-4 induced panic severity suggests that GLO1 is not involved into the acute panic response to CCK-4 in healthy volunteers. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify the involvement of GLO1 in anxiety disorders at baseline and in anxiety challenge paradigms to resolve the apparent contradictions of preclinical studies concerning the relationship between GLO1 expression and anxiety. (C) 2010 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

4.6
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