4.4 Article

Effect of angiotensin II on spatial memory, cerebral blood flow, cholinergic neurotransmission, and brain derived neurotrophic factor in rats

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 226, 期 2, 页码 357-369

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-012-2913-8

关键词

Angiotensin receptors; Candesartan; PD123,319; Memory

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies have shown the involvement of angiotensin II (Ang II) in neurobehavioral aspects, but the exact role of Ang II in memory is still ambiguous. This study explored the effect of central Ang II on spatial memory along with cholinergic neurotransmission, brain energy metabolism, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in rats. Spatial memory was evaluated by Morris water maze (MWM) after Ang II (ICV) administration in male Sprague-Dawley rats. CBF was measured by laser Doppler flowmetry. Oxidative stress adenosine triphosphate (ATP), BDNF, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), and acetylcholine (ACh) were estimated in the cortex and hippocampus at 1, 24, and 48 h after Ang II administration. The effect of AT1 and AT2 receptor blocker (candesartan and PD123,319, respectively), AChE inhibitor (donepezil), and antioxidant melatonin was studied on memory, CBF, and biochemical parameters. Ang II caused spatial memory impairment by affecting acquisition, consolidation, and recall in the MWM test along with a significant reduction in CBF. Ang II significantly reduced ACh level and caused oxidative stress in the rat brain 1 h post-injection. No significant change was observed in BDNF, AChE, and ATP level. Candesartan and donepezil prevented Ang II-induced memory impairment, reduction in CBF and ACh level. However, PD123,319 and melatonin failed to prevent Ang II-induced memory impairment but improved CBF partially. This study suggests that Ang II, via the AT1 receptor, affects spatial memory formation, CBF, and ACh level while AT2 receptor has no significant role.

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