4.5 Article

Sex comparison on long-lasting behavioral and physiological disturbances induced by single shock experience in rats

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 107, 期 2, 页码 243-251

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.06.018

关键词

PTSD; Sex; Foot-shock; Rat; Heart rate; Body temperature

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhanced female vulnerability and symptom severity are described in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It remains largely unknown whether females present with more pronounced PTSD-like symptoms than males in rodent models of PTSD. A model of single electric foot-shock followed by situational reminders was used to investigate in rats the impact of sex on potential long-lasting changes in anxiety-like behavior, and in endocrine and physiological responses to stress and fearful situations. Three weeks after single shock exposure (in the dark side of a shuttle box) both male and female rats spent less time in the dark compartment of a dark-light box and in the closed arms of an elevated plus maze than non-shocked controls. Both behaviors were likely due to avoidance of places reminiscent of the initial shock context. The shock exposure had no long-term impact on social interaction behavior or on basal and restraint stress-induced increases in plasma corticosterone. Shock exposure increased sudden silence-induced freezing responses and hyPerthermia during novelty stress and fear to a similar extent in both males and females and left heart rate responses unaffected. Non-shocked females generally showed a reduced response or faster recovery to baseline under stress- or fearful test conditions as compared to non-shocked males, which was likely due to differential sex-specific coping strategies. Taken together, our results suggest that, despite some baseline sex differences, both male and female rats are similarly affected in the long-term by the initial foot-shock exposure used in this particular simulation of PTSD. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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