4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Subdiaphragmatic vagotomy does not block intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide-induced fever

期刊

AUTONOMIC NEUROSCIENCE-BASIC & CLINICAL
卷 85, 期 1-3, 页码 83-87

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S1566-0702(00)00224-1

关键词

endotoxin; vagus nerve; cytokine-to-brain communication; rat; interleukin-1

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH55283, MH00314, MH45045] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several recent findings, including the inability of subdiaphragmatic vagotomy to block lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta) protein in brain, have made it necessary to reexamine the role of the subdiaphragmatic vagal afferents in immune-to-brain communication. In this study, we examined the effects of intraperitoneal (i.p.) injections of LPS on core body temperature in control and subdiaphragmatically vagotomized rats. Vagotomized and sham-operated male Sprague-Dawley rats were injected i.p. with vehicle (pyrogen-free saline) on the control day and LPS (1, 10 or 50 mug/kg) an the experimental day, and core body temperature was monitored by telemetry for 6 h after the injection. At this time, rats were sacrificed, and serum, liver, and pituitary samples were collected. The i.p. injection of LPS increased core body temperature in both sham-operated and vagotomized rats compared to the saline injection. In addition, LPS significantly increased IL-1 beta levels in serum, Liver, and pituitary compared to saline-injected controls. There were no significant differences in the magnitude of the fever or in the levels of IL-1 beta in serum, liver, or pituitary between sham-operated and vagotomized rats. Thus, the current data indicate that, at the doses tested, subdiaphragmatic vagal afferents are not crucial for i.p. LPS-induced fever. Because several effects of vagotomy have been shown to be dependent on dose, we are currently investigating whether vagal afferents are involved in lower-dose i.p. LPS-induced fever. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.1
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