4.6 Article

The role of neurotensin in positive reinforcement in the rat central nucleus of amygdala

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 208, 期 2, 页码 430-435

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.022

关键词

Neurotensin; NT receptor 1 antagonist; Conditioned place preference; Central nucleus of amygdala; Reinforcement

资金

  1. NKTH-OTKA [K 68431]
  2. MEDIPO-LIS [RET-008/2005]
  3. ETT [317/2006]
  4. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  5. Pecs University Medical School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the central nervous system neurotensin (NT) acts as a neurotransmitter and neuromodulator. It was shown that NT has positive reinforcing effects after its direct microinjection into the ventral tegmental area. The central nucleus of amygdala (CeA), part of the limbic system, plays an important role in learning, memory, regulation of feeding, anxiety and emotional behavior. By means of immunohistochemical and radioimmune methods it was shown that the amygdaloid body is relatively rich in NT immunoreactive elements and NT receptors. The aim of our study was to examine the possible effects of NT on reinforcement and anxiety in the CeA. In conditioned place preference test male Wistar rats were microinjected bilaterally with 100 or 250 ng NT in volume of 0.4 mu l or 35 ng neurotensin receptor 1 (NTS1) antagonist SR 48692 alone, or NTS1 antagonist 15 min before 100 ng NT treatment. Hundred or 250 ng NT significantly increased the time rats spent in the treatment quadrant. Prior treatment with the non-peptide NTS1 antagonist blocked the effects of NT. Antagonist itself did not influence the reinforcing effect. In elevated plus maze test we did not find differences among the groups as far as the anxiety index (time spent on the open arms) was concerned. Our results suggest that in the rat ACE NT has positive reinforcing effects. We clarified that NTS1s are involved in this action. It was also shown that NT does not influence anxiety behavior. (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