4.5 Article

Injury severity differentially affects short- and long-term neuroendocrine outcomes of traumatic brain injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 311-323

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2007.0486

关键词

allostasis; controlled cortical impact; corticosterone; rat; stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Having reported that traumatic brain injury (TBI), produced by moderate lateral controlled cortical impact (CCI), causes long-term dysregulation of the neuroendocrine stress response, the aim of this study was to assess short- and long-term effects of both moderate and mild CCI on stress-induced hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) function. TBI was induced to the left parietal cortex in adult male rats with a pneumatic piston, at two different impact velocities and compression depths to produce either a moderate or mild CCI. Controls underwent sham surgery without injury. Commencing at one week after recovery from surgery, rats were exposed to stressors: 30-min restraint (days 7, 34, and 70) or 15-min forced swim (days 21 and 54). Tail vein blood was analyzed for corticosterone (CORT) content by radioimmunoassay. On days 7 and 21, the stress-induced HPA responses were significantly attenuated by both mild and moderate CCI. Significant attenuation of the CORT response to stress persisted through day 70 after moderate CCI. In contrast, stress-induced CORT levels on days 34, 54, and 70 were significantly enhanced after mild CCI. Differential effects of injury severity were also observed on motor function in a forelimb test on post-injury day 12 and on cortical lesion volume and hippocampal cell loss at day 70, but not on working memory in a radial maze on day 15. The differing short- and long-term stress-induced HPA responses may be mediated by differential effects of moderate and mild CCI on the efficiency of glucocorticoid negative feedback or signaling among hypothalamic and extrahypothalamic components of the neuroendocrine stress-response system.

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