4.6 Article

Evaluation of two genetic animal models in behavioral tests of anxiety and depression

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 168, 期 1, 页码 127-136

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2005.10.019

关键词

anxiety; depression; animal models; rat strains; imipramine; home cage; principal components analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anxiety- and depression-related disorders often appear associated and may be affected by common genetic factors. The inbred rat strains Lewis (LEW) and spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) and the outbred rat lines Floripa H and L, which were selectively bred for high and low locomotion in the central area of the open field (OF) test, respectively, have been proposed as experimental tools to study anxiety. The main goal of the present study was to characterize the behavior of these animals in two models of anxiety, elevated plus-maze (EPM) and OF, in two models of depression, forced swim test (FST) and tail suspension test (TST) and in their home-cages. Emotionality-related differences between LEW and SHR rats and between Floripa H and L rats were found in the EPM, OF and FST. Those lines showing low anxiety-like profiles in the EPM and OF (SHR and Floripa H) also showed low immobility in the FST. The TST failed to unveil any line differences. Factor analysis involving all tests revealed three independent factors with one of them associating anxiety-related measures from the OF and EPM to immobility in the FST. When observed in their home-cages, LEW and SHR rats showed no differences in general activity, but when acutely treated with imipramine (15 mg/kg), only LEW rats were sensitive to its antidepressant effects. These results suggest the existence of a genetic link between two tests used in the screening of anxiolytic drugs and one test of antidepressant activity. Moreover, the LEW and SHR rat strains were shown to be an interesting model to study the comorbidity between anxiety- and depression-related disorders. (c) 2005 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

4.6
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