Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Karina Santos Gomes
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | Ribeirão Preto. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto (PCARP/BC) |
| Defense date: | 2005-03-04 |
| Examining board members: |
Ricardo Luiz Nunes de Souza;
Newton Sabino Canteras;
Francisco Silveira Guimarães
|
| Advisor: | Ricardo Luiz Nunes de Souza |
| Abstract | |
The exposure of mice to the elevated plus-maze (EPM), an animal model of anxiety, results in exhibition of defensive behaviors and antinociception. It also induces Fos protein expression in several limbic structures in rats. The present study investigated possible neuroanatomical correlations between the structures involved in the modulation of fear and antinociception in mice exposed to differente types of EPM [enclosed (eEPM: four enclosed arms), standard (sEPM: two open and two enclosed arms) and open (oEPM: four open arms)] with or without prior nociceptive stimulation. The evaluation of Fos-like immunoreactivity (FLI) was used as a functional marker of neuronal activation in the periaqueductal gray matter (PAG) (dorsal and ventrolateral), amygdala (AMY), bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), solitary tract nucleus (Sol), dorsomedial hypothalamus (dmHYP), raphe nuclei [Magno (RMg), Median (MnR) and Dorsal (DR)], superior (SC) and inferior coliculus (IC) and parabrachial nucleus (PB). Experiment I assessed the effect of EPMs exposure under the nociceptive response in three different types of nociception test: tail flick test (TF), writhing test (WT: induced by i.p injection of 0.6% acetic acid) and formalin test (FT). While the EPM exposure produced inconsitent results in the TF, exposure to the sEMP and the oEPM resulted in antinociception in WT. Only the oEPM exposure elicited antinociception in the FT. Experiment II investigated FLI in animals submitted or not to the WT and exposed to the different EPMs (see above). A group without any manipulation to verify the basal expression of Fos was added to the study. Exposure to the oEPM and sEPM provoked, respectively, antinociception and open arm avoidance without any change in nociception. EPM exposure increased protein expression in dmHYP and ventrolateral PAG, an effect that was independent of the nociceptive stimulation. Acetic acid injection tended to decrease FLI in many structures and a significant effect was recorded in PB and MnR. However, in general, a high level of Fos expression was found in Basal and eEPM groups rendering data interpretation difficult. Experiment III investigated whether diary handling (10 days) would reduce the FLI. Two groups one group to measure Fos Basal expression and one to measure Fos expression in animals submitted to the WT only were included to the study. As in EXP II, animals avoided the open arms of the sEPM. Also exposure to sEPM and oEPM provoked antinociception. Compared to Exp. II, FLI was decreased in almost all structures investigated, but as recorded in EXP II, nociceptive stimulation reduced FLI in several structures (Sol, Gi, AMY and PAG) in animals concurrently exposed to EPM. An exception was in the DR, in which an enhancement of Fos expression was revealed in eEPM exposed animals. The reduction in FLI cannot be attributed to the WT per se, since an increment of FLI was detected in several structures (MnR, DR, SC, dmHYP, AMY, CeAMY, BlAMY and PAG) in mice submitted to the WT but not exposed to the EPM. Present results indicate that the sEPM and oEPM exposure elicit antinociception evaluated in different chemical nociceptive tests. The antinociceptive response induced by oEPM exposure suggests that conflict situation is not crucial to inhibit pain in mice. It is possible that the FLI reduction recorded in animals exposed concurrently to both EPM and WT is associated with an inhibitory effect of the EPM experience on the nociceptive spinothalamic bundle stimulation induced by WT. (AU) | |