4.7 Article

High-affinity nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are required for antidepressant effects of amitriptyline on behavior and hippocampal cell proliferation

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 56, 期 9, 页码 657-664

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.08.010

关键词

nicotinic acetylcholine receptors; depression; learned; helplessness; forced swim; mecamylamine; tail suspension

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA13334, DA00167, DA10455, DA00436] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A wide variety of antidepressants act as noncompetitive antagonists of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), but the relationship between this antagonism and the therapeutic effects of antidepressants is unknown. Methods: Antidepressant properties of the noncompetitive nAChR antagonist mecamylamine in the forced swim test were tested alone and in combination with the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline. Mice lacking high-affinity nAChRs were tested in three behavioral effects of amitriptyline in common models of antidepressant models to determine whether these receptors are required for behavioral effects of amytriptyline in common models of antideppressant action. Finally, the brains of wild-type and knockout animals treated with amitriptyline were examined to determine whether high-affinity nAChRs are required for antidepressant-induced increases in hippocampal cell proliferation. Results: Inhibition of nAChRs by mecamylamine had antidepressant-like effects in the forced swim test and potentiated the antidepressant activity of amitriptyline when the two drags were used in combination. Mice lacking high-affinity nAChRs showed no behavioral response to amitriptyline. Finally after chronic treatment with amitriptyline, nAChR knockout mice did not show the increase in hippocampal cell proliferation seen in wild-type mice. Conclusions: These data support the hypothesis that antagonism of nAChRs is an essential component of the therapeutic action of antidepressants.

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

4.7
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