4.6 Article

Distinct patterns of brain Fos expression in Carioca High- and Low-conditioned Freezing Rats

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236039

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  2. Rio de Janeiro State Research Foundation (FAPERJ)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The bidirectional selection of high and low anxiety-like behavior is a valuable tool for understanding the neurocircuits that are responsible for anxiety disorders. Our group developed two breeding lines of rats, known as Carioca High- and Low-conditioned Freezing (CHF and CLF), based on defensive freezing in the contextual fear conditioning paradigm. A random selected line was employed as a control (CTL) comparison group for both CHF and CLF lines of animals. The present study performed Fos immunochemistry to investigate changes in neural activity in different brain structures among CHF and CLF rats when they were exposed to contextual cues that were previously associated with footshock. Results The study indicated that CHF rats expressed high Fos expression in the locus coeruleus, periventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus (PVN), and lateral portion of the septal area and low Fos expression in the medial portion of the septal area, dentate gyrus, and prelimbic cortex (PL) compared to CTL animals. CLF rats exhibited a decrease in Fos expression in the PVN, PL, and basolateral nucleus of the amygdala and increase in the cingulate and perirhinal cortices compared to CTL animals. Conclusions Both CHF and CLF rats displayed Fos expression changes key regions of the anxiety brain circuitry. The two bidirectional lines exhibit different pattern of neural activation and inhibition with opposing influences on the PVN, the main structure involved in regulating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal neuroendocrine responses observed in anxiety disorders.

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