4.6 Article

Selective blockade of 5-HT7 receptors facilitates attentional set-shifting in stressed and control rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 226, 期 1, 页码 118-123

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.09.006

关键词

Cognition; Stress; Depression; 5-HT7 receptors; Set-shifting; Antidepressants

资金

  1. European Union
  2. [POIG.01.01.02-12-004/09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preclinical data demonstrate that the selective blockade of 5-HT7 receptors produces antidepressant-like behavioural effects. Although the involvement of 5-HT7 receptors in cognitive processes has been previously suggested, little is known about their role in the prefrontal cortex (PFC)-dependent processes that may be impaired in stress-related states. According to our previous study, repeated restraint stress induces the long-lasting cognitive impairment in a rat model of PFC-dependent attentional set-shifting task (ASST). Therefore, the first aim of the present experiments was to examine the impact of the selective 5-HT7 receptor antagonist, SB-269970, on ASST performance of stressed and control rats. Since the selective blockade of 5-HT7 receptors has been previously demonstrated to enhance the behavioural effects of antidepressants, the second goal was to examine the impact of the joint administration of inactive doses of SB-269970 and escitalopram in the ASST. SB-269970 (0.3 and 1 mg/kg) given to stressed rats 30 min before testing reversed the restraint-induced impairment of the extra-dimensional (ED) set-shifting ability. Additionally, SB-269970 (1 mg/kg) also improved ED performance of the unstressed control group. Moreover, SB-269970, given at an inactive dose, enhanced the pro-cognitive efficacy of escitalopram. In conclusion, these results highlight the possibility that 5-HT7 receptor antagonism may represent a useful pharmacological approach in the treatment of frontal-like cognitive disturbances in stress-related psychiatric disorders. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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