4.6 Article

A proposal for refining the forced swim test in Swiss mice

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2013.05.002

关键词

Animal model; Antidepressants; Methodological refinement; Preclinical studies; Psychopharmacology; Stimulants

资金

  1. Brazilian Governmental Agency CNPq
  2. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (Monitoria-UFSC)
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  4. FAPESC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The forced swim test (FST) is a preclinical test to the screening of antidepressants based on rats or mice behaviours, which is also sensitive to stimulants of motor activity. This work standardised and validated a method to register the active and passive behaviours of Swiss mice during the FST in order to strength the specificity of the test. Adult male Swiss mice were subjected to the FST for 6 min without any treatment or after intraperitoneal injection of saline (0.1 ml/10 g), antidepressants (imipramine, desipramine, or fluoxetine, 30 mg/kg) or stimulants (caffeine, 30 mg/kg or apomorphine, 10 mg/kg). The latency, frequency and duration of behaviours (immobility, swimming, and climbing) were scored and summarised in bins of 6, 4, 2 or 1 min. Parameters were first analysed using Principal Components Analysis generating components putatively related to antidepressant (first and second) or to stimulant effects (third). Antidepressants and stimulants affected similarly the parameters grouped into all components. Effects of stimulants on climbing were better distinguished of antidepressants when analysed during the last 4 min of the FST. Surprisingly, the effects of antidepressants on immobility were better distinguished from saline when parameters were scored in the first 2 min. The method proposed here is able to distinguish antidepressants from stimulants of motor activity using Swiss mice in the FST. This refinement should reduce the number of mice used in preclinical evaluation of antidepressants. (C) 2013 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

4.6
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