4.4 Article

Effects of epigallocatechin-3-gallate on behavioral impairments induced by psychological stress in rats

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 235, 期 5, 页码 577-583

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/ebm.2010.009329

关键词

green tea polyphenols; epigallocatechin-3-gallate; psychological stress; cognitive performances

资金

  1. Nature Science Fund of China (NSFC) [30500406]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to explore the effects of epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) on cognitive performances in psychological stress rats. An animal model of psychological stress was developed by restraint stress for three weeks. Male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to four groups as follows: normal control group, stress control group and two stress groups with green tea polyphenols (GTPs) and EGCG modulation, respectively. The changes of behavioral performances of rats were examined by the open-field test and step-through test. Results showed that behavioral performances of stress control group were changed abnormally, and they were improved in GTPs and EGCG modulation groups. In addition, plasma levels of cortisol, dopamine, norepinephrine, 5-hydroxytryptamine, interleukin-6 and interleukin-2 were detected. Stress control group had increased contents of cortisol, interleukin-6 and interleukin-2, and meanwhile had declined levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine and catecholamines. These changes in GTPs and EGCG modulation groups were similar to that of the normal control group. The expressions of metallothioneins in the hippocampus were detected by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. In contrast with the normal control group, their expressions in all the three stress groups were enhanced clearly. The results suggested that GTPs and EGCG modulation could improve the cognitive impairments induced by psychological stress. The related mechanisms may be involved with the changes of catecholamines, 5-hydroxytryptamine, cytokines and expressions of metallothioneins.

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

4.4
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