4.4 Article

Differential levels of brain amino acids in rat models presenting learned helplessness or non-learned helplessness

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 229, 期 1, 页码 63-71

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-013-3080-2

关键词

Learned helplessness; GABA; Glutamine; Glutamate; Depression; Resilience; Hippocampus; Nucleus accumbens; Animal model

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24659143] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutamatergic and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic abnormalities have recently been proposed to contribute to depression. The learned helplessness (LH) paradigm produces a reliable animal model of depression that expresses a deficit in escape behavior (LH model); an alternative phenotype that does not exhibit LH is a model of resilience to depression (non-LH model). We measured the contents of amino acids in the brain to investigate the mechanisms involved in the pathology of depression. LH and non-LH models were subjected to inescapable electric footshocks at random intervals following a conditioned avoidance test to determine acquirement of predicted escape deficits. Tissue amino acid contents in eight brain regions were measured via high-performance liquid chromatography. The non-LH model showed increased GABA levels in the dentate gyrus and nucleus accumbens and increased glutamine levels in the dentate gyrus and the orbitofrontal cortex. The LH model had reduced glutamine levels in the medial prefrontal cortex. Changes in the ratios of GABA, glutamine, and glutamate were detected in the non-LH model, but not in the LH model. Reductions in threonine levels occurred in the medial prefrontal cortex in both models, whereas elevated alanine levels were detected in the medial prefrontal cortex in non-LH animals. The present study demonstrates region-specific compensatory elevations in GABA levels in the dentate gyrus and nucleus accumbens of non-LH animals, supporting the implication of the GABAergic system in the recovery of depression.

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