4.1 Article

Chronic Fluoxetine Treatment Changes S100B Expression During Postnatal Rat Brain Development

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/cap.2011.0065

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, is approved for treatment of childhood depression. In rats, fluoxetine influences neuronal development, but it is unclear whether it also influences glia development. S100B is a glia-derived calcium-binding protein, which may influence the development of serotonergic fibers and, vice versa, serotonin may influence the expression of S100B. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether fluoxetine treatment influences the expression of S100B during postnatal development, and whether potential changes are regionally dependent upon the time frame of drug administration. Methods:S100B gene expression and S100B protein expression in three different brain regions (frontal cortex, hippocampus, and striatum) were studied by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunohistochemistry, respectively. First, a short-term effect, 24 hours after a 14 day fluoxetine treatment (5mg/kg/bw s.c.) of rats either from postnatal day (PD) 1 to 15, 21 to 35, or 50 to 64, was investigated. Then, the same treatment was used to analyze S100B gene and protein levels at PD 90 (long-term effect). Results: At PD 90, a significant increase of gene and protein expression was observed in all regions if rats were treated during PDs 21-35, whereas treatment during other periods had no long-term effects. A short-term effect 24 hours after fluoxetine treatment was found for almost all development stages and regions, demonstrated by a significant increase of S100B. Conclusions: These results support recent research indicating a highly drug-sensitive period (i.e., periadolescence) of rat brain development. Therefore, further clinical studies should be performed to clarify whether such a sensitive period also exists in children.

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