4.6 Article

Modeling mania: Further validation for Black Swiss mice as model animals

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 223, 期 1, 页码 222-226

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.04.047

关键词

Bipolar disorder; Animal models; Affective disorder; Validation; GSK-3

资金

  1. NARSAD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paucity of appropriate animal models for bipolar disorder hinders the research of the disorder and its treatments. Previous work suggests that Black Swiss (BS) mice may be a suitable model animal for behavioral domains of mania including reward-seeking, risk-taking, vigor, aggression and sensitivity to psychostimulants. These behaviors are high in BS mice compared with other strains and are responsive to the mood stabilizers lithium and valproate but not to the antidepressant imipramine. The current study evaluated the etiological validity of this model by assessing brain expression of two proteins implicated in affective disorders, beta-catenin and BDNF, in BS mice versus C57bl/6, A/J and CBA/J mice. Additionally, pharmacological validity was further tested by assessing the effects of risperidone in a behavioral battery of tests. beta-catenin and BDNF expression were evaluated in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of untreated BS, CBA/J, A/J and C57bl/6 mice by western blot. Subchronic 0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg doses of risperidone were tested in a battery of behavioral tests for domains of mania. Expression of beta-catenin was found to be lower in the hippocampus of BS mice compared with the other strains. Reduced beta-catenin expression was not observed in the frontal cortex. BDNF expression levels were similar between strains in both the hippocampus and frontal cortex. In the behavioral tests, risperidone ameliorated amphetamine-induced hyperactivity without affecting other tests in the battery. These results offer additional pharmacological and possible etiological validity supporting the utilization of Black Swiss mice as a model for domains of mania. (C) 2011 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