Suppr超能文献

抗惊恐药物治疗:对防御性埋土行为未表现出抗焦虑样作用。

Antipanic drug treatments: failure to exhibit anxiolytic-like effects on defensive burying behavior.

作者信息

Beardslee S L, Papadakis E, Fontana D J, Commissaris R L

机构信息

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202.

出版信息

Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990 Feb;35(2):451-5. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(90)90183-i.

Abstract

Although the Defensive Burying paradigm has been used as a behavioral "model" for the study of anxiety and/or antianxiety agents, the effects of chronic treatment with antidepressant agents (i.e., "antipanic" agents) have not been examined in this paradigm. The present study examined the effects of two antianxiety treatments on this behavior: 1) acute treatment (30-minute pretreatment) with the benzodiazepine anxiolytic chlordiazepoxide and 2) chronic treatment (twice daily for 7-12 weeks) with the antipanic agents imipramine (IMI), desipramine (DMI) or pargyline (PARG). Prior to testing, female Sprague-Dawley rats were placed in a 40 x 30 x 40 cm Plexiglas chamber containing clay bedding material (5 cm deep) for 30-minute periods on each of four consecutive days. On the fifth day, a wire-wrapped prod was placed at one end of the chamber. Rats were placed in the chamber individually and a 3 mA shock was delivered upon contact with the prod. Defensive Burying behavior (i.e., the moving of bedding material toward or over the prod) was recorded for 15 minutes postshock. In a dose-dependent manner, acute treatment with chlordiazepoxide reduced the frequency of occurrence of burying behavior, increased the latency to initiation of burying, and decreased the duration of burying. In contrast, chronic treatment with IMI, DMI, or PARG failed to exhibit anxiolytic-like effects on any measure of Defensive Burying. These data suggest that the Defensive Burying paradigm may not be an "animal model" for the study of panic disorder and potential antipanic agents.

摘要

尽管防御性埋土范式已被用作研究焦虑和/或抗焦虑药物的行为“模型”,但抗抑郁药(即“抗惊恐”药)的长期治疗效果在此范式中尚未得到检验。本研究考察了两种抗焦虑治疗对该行为的影响:1)用苯二氮䓬类抗焦虑药氯氮䓬进行急性治疗(预处理30分钟),以及2)用抗惊恐药丙咪嗪(IMI)、去甲丙咪嗪(DMI)或帕吉林(PARG)进行长期治疗(每天两次,持续7 - 12周)。在测试前,将雌性斯普拉格 - 道利大鼠连续四天每天置于一个装有黏土垫料(5厘米深)的40×30×40厘米有机玻璃箱中30分钟。在第五天,将一个缠绕金属丝的探针置于箱的一端。将大鼠单独放入箱中,一旦接触到探针就施加3毫安的电击。在电击后15分钟记录防御性埋土行为(即把垫料移向或覆盖在探针上的行为)。氯氮䓬急性治疗以剂量依赖的方式降低了埋土行为的发生频率,增加了开始埋土的潜伏期,并缩短了埋土的持续时间。相比之下,用IMI、DMI或PARG进行长期治疗在防御性埋土的任何测量指标上均未表现出抗焦虑样效应。这些数据表明,防御性埋土范式可能不是研究惊恐障碍和潜在抗惊恐药物的“动物模型”。

相似文献

1
Antipanic drug treatments: failure to exhibit anxiolytic-like effects on defensive burying behavior.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990 Feb;35(2):451-5. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(90)90183-i.
2
Defensive burying behavior in maudsley reactive (MR/Har) and nonreactive (MNRA/Har) rats.
Physiol Behav. 1989 Feb;45(2):449-51. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(89)90154-6.
3
Noradrenergic facilitation of shock-probe defensive burying in lateral septum of rats, and modulation by chronic treatment with desipramine.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2007 Mar 30;31(2):482-95. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.11.015. Epub 2006 Dec 26.
5
Defensive burying in rodents: ethology, neurobiology and psychopharmacology.
Eur J Pharmacol. 2003 Feb 28;463(1-3):145-61. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(03)01278-0.
6
Chronic anxiolytic treatment effects on conflict behavior in the rat.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990 Sep;37(1):177-86. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(90)90059-q.
8
A comparison of buspirone and chlordiazepoxide in the shock-probe/burying test for anxiolytics.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1988 Aug;30(4):1071-5. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(88)90141-4.
9
Interaction of desipramine with steroid hormones on experimental anxiety.
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2000 Feb;25(2):109-20. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(99)00042-6.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验