4.4 Article

Age-related spatial cognitive impairment is correlated with a decrease in ChAT in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus and forebrain of SAMP8 mice

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 454, 期 3, 页码 212-217

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.030

关键词

Choline acetyltransferase (ChAT); Senescence-accelerated mice (SAM); Aging

资金

  1. PhD Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University [BXJ0829]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At present, the mechanisms underlying cognitive disorders remain unclear. The senescence-accelerated mice (SAM) prone/8 (P8) has been proposed as a useful model for the study of aging, and SAM resistant/1 (RI) is its control as a normal aging strain. The purpose of this study was to investigate choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) expression in SAM brain. The age-related decline of learning and memory ability in P8 mice (4, 8 and 12 months old, n = 10 for each group) was proved in Morris water maze test (MWM). After the behavioral test, protein and mRNA levels of ChAT were determined in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus and forebrain by means of immunostaining, Western blotting. and real time quantitative PCR (QPCR). Comparing with 4-month-old P8 and R1, 8- and 12-month-old P8 showed age-related cognitive impairment in MWM test. The latencies of the 4-month-old P8 in a hidden platform trial were significantly shorter, and the retention time was significantly longer than that of the older P8 groups. In addition, significantly low level of ChAT protein was observed in older P8 groups. Comparing with the 4-month-old P8, ChAT mRNA in the 12-month-old P8 declined significantly in all three regions of P8 brain. Pearson correlation test showed that the latencies in the MWM were positively correlated with the level of ChAT in P8. Such phenomenon could not be detected in normal aging R1 mice. These findings suggest that the decrease of ChAT in P8 mice was responsible for the age-related learning and memory impairments in some sense. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.4
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