4.5 Article

Carbon Dioxide-Induced Anesthesia Results in a Rapid Increase in Plasma Levels of Vasopressin

期刊

ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 150, 期 6, 页码 2934-2939

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/en.2008-1408

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Drug Abuse [P60-DA05130]
  2. National Institutes of Health-National Center for Research Resources [RR00862]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brief anesthesia, such as after exposure to high levels of carbon dioxide, prior to decapitation is considered a more humane alternative for the euthanasia of rodents, compared with use of decapitation alone. Studies of the levels of certain stress hormones in plasma such as corticosterone and ACTH have supported the use of this method of euthanasia in endocrinological and molecular studies. In the current study, rats were briefly exposed to a chamber filled with carbon dioxide until recumbent (20-25 sec), immediately killed via decapitation, and trunk blood collected; findings were compared with rats killed via decapitation with no exposure to carbon dioxide. RIAs were used to measure arginine vasopressin (AVP) and ACTH immunoreactivity (ir) in plasma. Whereas ACTH-ir levels remained steady after brief exposure to carbon dioxide (in accordance with results of other investigators), AVP-ir levels were increased by more than an order of magnitude. These results were confirmed by quantitative capillary-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, indicating this observation of rapid increase in plasma AVP-ir levels is not due to nonspecific recognition by the antibody used in the RIA. Likewise, using capillary-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, we observed a rapid increase in plasma oxytocin levels after carbon dioxide exposure. These surprising findings have important implications for the design and interpretation of studies involving brief carbon dioxide exposure prior to decapitation as well as those with euthanasia resulting from carbon dioxide-induced asphyxiation. (Endocrinology 150: 2934-2939, 2009)

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

4.5
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