4.4 Article

Cognitive dysfunction associated with diabetic ketoacidosis in rats

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 510, 期 2, 页码 110-114

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.014

关键词

Brain injury; Diabetic ketoacidosis; Neurocognitive; Pediatric

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1 NS048610]
  2. National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health [C06 RR17348-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Type 1 diabetes mellitus in children may be associated with neurocognitive deficits of unclear cause. A recent retrospective study in children suggested possible associations between diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and decreased memory. The current investigation was undertaken to determine whether cognitive deficits could be detected after a single episode of DMA in an animal model. Methods: Streptozotocin was used to induce diabetes in juvenile rats, and rats were then treated with subcutaneous insulin injections. In one group, insulin was subsequently withdrawn to allow development of DMA, which was then treated with insulin and saline. After recovery from DKA, subcutaneous insulin injections were re-started. In the diabetes control group, rats continued to receive subcutaneous insulin and underwent sham procedures identical to the DMA group. One week after recovery, cognitive function was tested using the Morris Water Maze, a procedure that requires rats to locate a hidden platform in a water pool using visual cues. During a 10 day period, mean time to locate the platform (latency) during 4 trials per day was recorded. Results: Comparison of latency curves demonstrated longer mean latency times on days 7 and 8 in the DKA group indicating delayed learning compared to diabetic controls. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that a single DMA episode results in measurable deficits in learning in rats, consistent with findings that DMA may contribute to neurocognitive deficits in children with type 1 diabetes. (C) 2012 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