CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较噻奈普汀与氟西汀对应激导致大鼠行为及血清皮质酮浓度改变的影响及其抗抑郁机制.方法将33只大鼠随机分为对照组(n ＝6)、应激给水组(n ＝6) 、应激给噻奈普汀组(n ＝6)和应激给氟西汀组(n ＝15),各应激组大鼠连续给予强迫游泳试验4周,每天持续15 min.游泳后给予灌胃,应激给药组分别按50 mg/kg给予噻奈普汀生理盐水溶液、按4 mg/kg给予氟西汀生理盐水溶液灌胃,应激给水组按相同比例给予生理盐水灌胃,采用旷场实验(Open-Field test)法评定行为,使用酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA)测定血清皮质酮水平,用单因素方差检验进行组间比较,两两比较采用LSD法.结果应激给氟西汀组大鼠爬格数[(73.53±43.66)次]和直立次数[(10.00±11.14)次]明显高于应激给水组爬格数[(7.67±3.01)次,P ＜0.01]和直立次数[(0.67±0.82)次,P ＜0.05],而与对照组和应激给噻奈普汀组相比差异无显著性;应激给氟西汀组修饰次数[(3.40±2.47)次,P ＜0.01]和应激给水组[(3.17±3.19)次,P ＜0.05]明显低于对照组[(7.00±1.79)次],而与应激给噻奈普汀组[(4.67±2.34)次]相比差异无显著性.对照组血清皮质酮[(191.60±116.41)ng/ml]和应激给氟西汀组[(315.49±146.35)ng/ml]均明显低于应激给水组[(765.37±250.87)ng/ml,P ＜0.01]和应激给噻奈普汀组[(863.49±282.31)ng/ml,P ＜0.01];对照组血清皮质酮与应激给氟西汀组相比差异无显著性,应激给水组血清皮质酮与应激给噻奈普汀组相比差异无显著性.结论噻奈普汀与氟西汀均可以有效逆转应激所致行为学改变, 且后者在改善慢性应激所致的抑郁状态更显著;氟西汀对应激大鼠皮质酮激素水平的逆转作用较噻奈普汀显著.
목적 비교새내보정여불서정대응격도치대서행위급혈청피질동농도개변적영향급기항억욱궤제.방법 장33지대서수궤분위대조조(n ＝6)、응격급수조(n ＝6) 、응격급새내보정조(n ＝6)화응격급불서정조(n ＝15),각응격조대서련속급여강박유영시험4주,매천지속15 min.유영후급여관위,응격급약조분별안50 mg/kg급여새내보정생리염수용액、안4 mg/kg급여불서정생리염수용액관위,응격급수조안상동비례급여생리염수관위,채용광장실험(Open-Field test)법평정행위,사용매련면역흡부측정법(ELISA)측정혈청피질동수평,용단인소방차검험진행조간비교,량량비교채용LSD법.결과 응격급불서정조대서파격수[(73.53±43.66)차]화직립차수[(10.00±11.14)차]명현고우응격급수조파격수[(7.67±3.01)차,P ＜0.01]화직립차수[(0.67±0.82)차,P ＜0.05],이여대조조화응격급새내보정조상비차이무현저성;응격급불서정조수식차수[(3.40±2.47)차,P ＜0.01]화응격급수조[(3.17±3.19)차,P ＜0.05]명현저우대조조[(7.00±1.79)차],이여응격급새내보정조[(4.67±2.34)차]상비차이무현저성.대조조혈청피질동[(191.60±116.41)ng/ml]화응격급불서정조[(315.49±146.35)ng/ml]균명현저우응격급수조[(765.37±250.87)ng/ml,P ＜0.01]화응격급새내보정조[(863.49±282.31)ng/ml,P ＜0.01];대조조혈청피질동여응격급불서정조상비차이무현저성,응격급수조혈청피질동여응격급새내보정조상비차이무현저성.결론 새내보정여불서정균가이유효역전응격소치행위학개변, 차후자재개선만성응격소치적억욱상태경현저;불서정대응격대서피질동격소수평적역전작용교새내보정현저.
Objective To compare the effect of tianeptine and fluoxetine on behaviour and serum corticosterone concentration changes induced by stress and its antidepression mechanism. Methods 33 rats were randomly allocated into control(n ＝6), 4 week-stress with saline(n ＝6), 4 week-stress with tianeptine(n ＝6)and 4 week-stress with fluoxetine (n ＝15) groups.Forced swimming test was used to set up stress animal model,and open-field test was used to assess the behavior,then concentration of serum corticosterone was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays(ELIA). Results The number of crossing and standing up of 4 week-stress with fluoxetine group[(73.53±43.66),(10.00±11.14)] were much higher than 4 week-stress with saline group[(7.67±3.01),P ＜0.01;(0.67±0.82),P ＜0.05],while no difference was found compared with control group and 4 week-stress with tianeptine group; the number of stool of 4 week-stress with fluoxetine [(3.40±2.47),P ＜0.01]and 4 week-stress with saline group[(3.17±3.19),P ＜0.05] were much lower than control group(7.00±1.79), while no difference was found compared with 4 week-stress with tianeptine group(4.67±2.34). Concentration of serum corticosterone of control group[(191.60±116.41)ng/ml] and 4 week-stress with fluoxetine group[(315.49±146.35)ng/ml] were both much lower than 4 week-stress with saline group[(765.37±250.87)ng/ml,P ＜0.01] and 4 week-stress with tianeptine group[(863.49±282.31)ng/ml,P ＜0.01].There was no difference when compared with the concentration of serum corticosterone of control group and 4 week-stress with fluoxetine group, while no difference was found when compared with 4 week-stress with saline group and 4 week-stress with tianeptine group. Conclusions Both tianeptine and fluoxetine can reverse stress-induced behavior changes, and the fluoxetine is even better to improve the depression induced by stress;meanwhile the effect of reverse the level of serum corticosterone concentration of fluoxetine is much higher than tianeptine.