4.6 Article

Neonatal exposure to LPS leads to heightened exploratory activity in adolescent rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 215, 期 1, 页码 102-109

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.07.001

关键词

Lipopolysaccharide; Neonatal immune challenges; Exploratory behavior; Adolescent rat; Elevated plus-maze; Rearing; Novel-object; Forced swim

资金

  1. CNPq, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although several reports have demonstrated physiological and behavioral changes in adult rats due to neonatal immune challenges, little is known about their effects in adolescence. Since neonatal exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) alters the neural substrates involved in cognitive disorders, we tested the hypothesis that it may also alter the response to novel environments in adolescent rats. At 3 and 5 days of age, male Wistar rats received intraperitoneal injections of either vehicle solution or E. coli LPS (0.05 mg/kg) or were left undisturbed. In the mid-adolescent period, between 40 and 46 days of age, the rats were exposed to the following behavioral tests: elevated plus-maze, open-field, novel-object exploration task, hole-board and the modified Porsolt forced swim test. The results showed that, in comparison with control animals, LPS-treated rats exhibited (1) less anxiety-related behaviors and enhanced patterns of locomotion and rearing in the plus-maze and the open-field tests, (2) high levels of exploration of both objects in the novel-object task and of corner and central holes in hole-board test, and (3) more time spent diving, an active behavior in the forced swim test. The present findings suggest that neonatal LPS exposure has long-lasting effects on the behavior profile adolescent rats exhibit in response to novelty. This behavioral pattern, characterized by heightened exploratory activity in novel environments, also suggests that early immune stimulation may contribute to the development of impulsive behavior in adolescent rats. (C) 2010 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