4.5 Article

Swimming improves the emotional memory deficit by scopolamine via mu opioid receptors

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 237-246

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.02.011

关键词

Elevated plus-maze; Anxiety; Emotional memory; Swimming; Scopolamine; CA1; Mice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of swimming exercise on elevated plus-maze (EPM)-associated memory deficit induced by intra-CA1 injection of scopolamine (a muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist used to model Alzheimer's disease in rodents) in male mice. In addition, involvement of the mu opioid receptors in this phenomenon was investigated. Main methods: Bilateral guide cannulae were implanted to allow intra-CA1 microinjections. Key findings: Data showed that mice with 10 and 20 days of swimming, only acquired the emotional memory, while 30 days of swimming exercise improved it. On the other hand, pretest intra-CA1 injection of scopolamine at the doses of 2 and 3 but not 1 mu g/mouse reduced the emotional memory. Our results demonstrated that 20 days of swimming by itself and without any drug injection restored the emotional memory deficit induced by intra-CA1 injection of scopolamine, only at the dose of 2 but not 3 mu g/mouse. Moreover, once daily injection of the subthreshold doses of morphine (2.5 and 5 mg/kg, i.p.) during the last 7 days of the 20 day-swimming intervention, improved the emotional memory deficit induced by scopolamine (3 mu g/mouse) and this effect could be blocked by the subthreshold doses of naloxone (0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg). It was noted that all previous interventions did not alter the anxiety-like behaviors. Significance: Swimming improved the emotional memory by itself and restored the emotional memory deficit induced by the intra-CA1 injection of scopolamine. Mu opioid receptor-dependent mechanism(s) is(are) suggested to play a role in this phenomenon. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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