4.5 Article

Lateralized amygdala activation: Importance in the regulation of anxiety and pain behavior

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 371-375

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.038

关键词

Amygdala; Visceral pain; Anxiety; Somatic pain; Lateralization

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The amygdala is involved in the emotional responses to fear including anxiety and heightened pain reporting. In a rodent model, bilateral activation of the central amygdala (CeA) with corticosterone (CORT) produces anxiety-like behavior, somatic allodynia and visceral hypersensitivity. Although hemisphere-specific processing differences between the left and right amygdala have been reported, it remains unclear whether the right or left CeA is involved in the production of anxiety-like behavior, and abnormal somatic and visceral perception. The goal of the present study was to investigate the hypothesis that lateralized corticoid-mediated mechanisms in the CeA produce anxiety as well as abnormal pain perception. Methods: Anesthetized rats received stereotaxic implants of cholesterol (Choi; 30 mu g) or CORT (30 mu g) micropellets onto the left, right or both dorsal margins of the CeA. Following implantation (5-7 days), anxiety-like behavior was assessed on the elevated plus-maze (EPM), somatic allodynia was measured using Von Frey filaments, and visceral sensitivity was quantified as a visceromotor response (VMR) to colorectal distention (CRD) at 0-60 mm Hg. Results: Unilateral implants of CORT onto either the left or right CeA produced anxiety-like behavior and somatic allodynia. However, our data illustrated that the bilateral placement of CORT onto the CeA was required to increase visceral sensitivity. Conclusion: These results provide evidence that there is no hemispheric lateralization of the CeA involved in corticoid-mediated anxiety-like behavior and heightened pain reporting. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.5
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