4.7 Review

Translational approach to studying panic disorder in rats: Hits and misses

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 472-496

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.002

关键词

Panic; Stress; Depression; Suffocation; Hypoxia; Hypercapnia; Hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis; Periaqueductal grey matter

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq
  3. CNPq/FAPES [55203345/11]
  4. UFES/AFIP [23068020409/2010-43]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Luiz Carlos Schenberg, Fagna Giacomin Schimitel, Rubia de Souza Armini, Cristian Setubal Bernabe, Caroline Azevedo Rosa, Sergio Tufik, Claudia Janaina Torres Muller, Jeyce Willig Quintino-dos-Santos. Translational Approach to Studying Panic Disorder in Rats: Hits and Misses. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. XX (X) XXX-XXX, 2014. Panic disorder (PD) patients are specifically sensitive to 5-7% carbon dioxide. Another startling feature of clinical panic is the counterintuitive lack of increments in 'stress hormones'. PD is also more frequent in women and highly comorbid with childhood separation anxiety (CSA). On the other hand, increasing evidence suggests that panic is mediated at dorsal periaqueductal grey matter (DPAG). In line with prior studies showing that DPAG-evoked panic-like behaviours are attenuated by clinically-effective treatments with panicolytics, we show here that (i) the DPAG harbors a hypoxia-sensitive alarm system, which is activated by hypoxia and potentiated by hypercapnia, (ii) the DPAG suffocation alarm system is inhibited by clinically-effective treatments with panicolytics, (iii) DPAG stimulations do not increase stress hormones in the absence of physical exertion, (iv) DPAG-evoked panic-like behaviours are facilitated in neonatally-isolated adult rats, a model of CSA, and (v) DPAG-evoked responses are enhanced in the late diestrus of female rats. Data are consistent with the DPAG mediation of both respiratory and non-respiratory types of panic attacks. (C) 2014 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