4.6 Article

Expression of HIV-Tat protein is associated with learning and memory deficits in the mouse

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 229, 期 1, 页码 48-56

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.12.019

关键词

HIV-1; NeuroAIDS; Tat; Learning; Memory; Mouse

资金

  1. NINDS [F31 NS064872-01]
  2. NIDA [R03 DA16415]
  3. NIMH [R01 MH085607]
  4. State of Florida, Executive Office of the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

HIV-Tat protein has been implicated in the pathogenesis of HIV-1 neurological complications (i.e., neuroAIDS), but direct demonstrations of the effects of Tat on behavior are limited. GT-tg mice with a doxycycline (Dox)-inducible and brain-selective tat gene coding for Tat protein were used to test the hypothesis that the activity of Tat in brain is sufficient to impair learning and memory processes. Western blot analysis of GT-tg mouse brains demonstrated an increase in Tat antibody labeling that seemed to be dependent on the dose and duration of Dox pretreatment. Dox-treated GT-tg mice tested in the Barnes maze demonstrated longer latencies to find an escape hole and displayed deficits in probe trial performance versus uninduced GT-tg littermates, suggesting Tat-induced impairments of spatial learning and memory. Reversal learning was also impaired in Tat-induced mice. Tat-induced mice additionally demonstrated long-lasting (up to one month) deficiencies in novel object recognition learning and memory performance. Furthermore, novel object recognition impairment was dependent on the dose and duration of Dox exposure, suggesting that Tat exposure progressively mediated deficits. These experiments provide evidence that Tat protein expression is sufficient to mediate cognitive abnormalities seen in HIV-infected individuals. Moreover, the genetically engineered GT-tg mouse may be useful for improving our understanding of the neurological underpinnings of neuroAIDS-related behaviors. (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