4.7 Review

Neurobiology of chronic mild stress: Parallels to major depression

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 2085-2117

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.07.001

关键词

Stress; Depression; Neurobiology; Animal model; HPA axis

资金

  1. NIH/NIAAA [R37 AA007789]
  2. Canadian Institute of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The chronic mild (or unpredictable/variable) stress (CMS) model was developed as an animal model of depression more than 20 years ago. The foundation of this model was that following long-term exposure to a series of mild, but unpredictable stressors, animals would develop a state of impaired reward salience that was akin to the anhedonia observed in major depressive disorder. In the time since its inception, this model has also been used for a variety of studies examining neurobiological variables that are associated with depression, despite the fact that this model has never been critically examined to validate that the neurobiological changes induced by CMS are parallel to those documented in depressive disorder. The aim of the current review is to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of chronic mild stress on neurobiological variables, such as neurochemistry, neurochemical receptor expression and functionality, neurotrophin expression and cellular plasticity. These findings are then compared to those of clinical research examining common variables in populations with depressive disorders to determine if the changes observed following chronic mild stress are in fact consistent with those observed in major depression. We conclude that the chronic mild stress paradigm: (1) evokes an array of neurobiological changes that mirror those seen in depressive disorders and (2) may be a suitable tool to investigate novel systems that could be disturbed in depression, and thus aid in the development of novel targets for the treatment of depression. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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