4.5 Article

The effect glucocorticoids on aggressiveness in established colonies of rats

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 160-170

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2006.12.002

关键词

rat; behavior; glucocorticoid; social; aggression; established colony

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It was repeatedly shown that glucocorticoids increase aggressiveness when subjects are socially challenged. However, the interaction between challenge exposure and glucocorticoid effects was not investigated yet. We studied this interaction by assessing the effects of glucocorticoids in established colonies of rats, i.e. in rats that were not exposed to an acute social challenge. Aggressiveness was high immediately after colony formation but decreased sharply within 4 days and remained stable thereafter. Mild dominance relations were observed in 11 colonies (65%). Approximately three weeks after colony formation, rats remained undisturbed or were injected with vehicle or corticosterone. Routine colony life was followed for 1 h after treatments. Injections per se induced a mild and transient behavioral activation: resting was reduced, whereas exploration, social and agonistic interactions were increased. The change lasted about 15 min. Corticosterone-although plasma corticosterone levels were increased-had no specific effect, as the behavior of vehicle- and corticosterone-treated rats was similar. Social rank had a minor impact on the results. In contrast, the pro-aggressive effects of corticosterone were robust under conditions of social challenge and were maintained after repeated exposure to aggressive encounters. It occurs that an acute increase in glucocorticoids promotes social challenge-induced aggressiveness, but does not increase aggressiveness under routine conditions. We hypothesize that the pro-aggressive effects of glucocorticoids develop in conjunction with challenge-induced neuronal (e.g. monoaminergic) activation. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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