4.5 Article

Long-term behavioral consequences of brief, repeated neonatal isolation

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1128, 期 1, 页码 139-147

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.054

关键词

neonatal isolation; elevated plus maze; open field; ACTH; corticosterone

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R37 MH041414, R37 MH41414, R37 MH041414-21] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rats subjected to stressful stimuli during the stress hyporesponsive period exhibit varied neuroendocrine and behavioral changes as neonates, adolescents and adults. The current work examined the effects of neonatal isolation stress, using a within-litter design, on adult anxiety-related behavior and endocrine stress reactivity. Neonatal rats were isolated daily for 1 h from postnatal day (P) 4 to 9, a manipulation previously shown to induce hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) responses on P9 (Knuth, E.D., Etgen, A.M. (2005) Corticosterone secretion induced by chronic isolation in neonatal rats is sexually dimorphic and accompanied by elevated ACTH. Horm Behav 47:65-75.). Control animals were either handled briefly or left undisturbed (with-dam). Adult rats were tested for anxiety-related behavior using the elevated plus maze and open field, and for endocrine responses following restraint stress. Neonatal isolation decreased center exploration of the open field following 1 h restraint, including decreased time in the center compared to with-dam or handled controls and decreased center entries and distance traveled in the center compared to with-dam controls. It also decreased time in and entries into the open arms of the elevated plus maze compared to handled controls, suggesting enhanced anxiety-related behavior. Neonatal isolation had no effect on basal or restraint-induced levels of ACTH or corticosterone. These findings indicate that neonatal isolation may enhance anxiety-related behaviors, especially in response to stress, without altering HPA function. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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