4.5 Article

Side effects of different head and neck radiotherapy doses on wistar rat's behavior

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1822, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2023.148606

关键词

Depression; Distress; Fatigue; Ionizing radiation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study evaluated the influence of head and neck radiotherapy on the behavior and body weight gain in Wistar rats. The results demonstrated that different doses of radiation induced depressive behavior in the animals, and that the weight gain tended to be lower in the irradiated groups.
Radiotherapy (RT) is a common treatment for head and neck tumors. However, it causes several physical and behavioral side effects, and no study has assessed the emotional effects in rats. Therefore, the present study evaluated the influence of head and neck RT on the behavior and body weight gain in Wistar rats. Fifty-four male Wistar rats were allocated into six groups (n = 9) according to the irradiation dose, which was applied at the first day of the experiment: RT-7.5 (single dose of 7.5 Gy); RT-10 (single dose of 10 Gy); RT-15 (single dose of 15 Gy); RT-30 (single dose of 30 Gy); Control (without RT). The animals were irradiated in the region of the right face, and behavioral tests and weighing were performed on days one, seven, and 28. The open field and Y-maze tests were undertaken to analyze the animal's behavior. The dose of 30 Gy was lethal when applied to the head and neck region. The irradiated animals had less weight gain when compared to the control ones, but there was no statistical difference. In the open field and Y-maze tests, lower mobility of animals in the RT groups was observed both on day seven and at the end of the experiment (day 28) when compared to the control rats (p < 0.05). It was possible to conclude that the different doses of radiation induced depressive behavior in the animals, and that the weight gain tended to be lower in the irradiated groups, however, without statistical difference.

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