| Literature DB >> 28523193 |
Huili Jiang1, Xuhui Zhang1, Yu Wang1, Huimin Zhang2, Jing Li1, Xinjing Yang1, Bingcong Zhao1, Chuntao Zhang3, Miao Yu1, Mingmin Xu1, Qiuyun Yu1, Xingchen Liang1, Xiang Li1, Peng Shi1, Tuya Bao1.
Abstract
Protein kinase A (PKA)/cAMP response element-binding (CREB) protein signaling pathway, contributing to impaired neurogenesis parallel to depressive-like behaviors, has been identified as the crucial factor involved in the antidepressant response of acupuncture. However, the molecular mechanisms associated with antidepressant response of acupuncture, neurogenesis, and depressive-like behaviors ameliorating remain unexplored. The objective was to identify the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant response of acupuncture through PKA signaling pathway in depression rats by employing the PKA signaling pathway inhibitor H89 in in vivo experiments. Our results indicated that the expression of hippocampal PKA-α and p-CREB was significantly downregulated by chronic unpredicted mild stress (CUMS) procedures. Importantly, acupuncture reversed the downregulation of PKA-α and p-CREB. The expression of PKA-α was upregulated by fluoxetine, but not p-CREB. No significant difference was found between Acu and FLX groups on the expression of PKA-α and p-CREB. Interestingly, H89 inhibited the effects of acupuncture or fluoxetine on upregulating the expression of p-CREB, but not PKA-α. There was no significant difference in expression of CREB among the groups. Conclusively, our findings further support the hypothesis that acupuncture could ameliorate depressive-like behaviors by regulating PKA/CREB signaling pathway, which might be mainly mediated by regulating the phosphorylation level of CREB.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28523193 PMCID: PMC5412208 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4135164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
Figure 1Experimental procedures. Acu: acupuncture group; FLX: fluoxetine group; Acu + H89: Acupuncture + H89 group; FLX + H89: Fluoxetine + H89 group; PKA-α: protein kinase A-α; CREB: cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element-binding protein; p-CREB: Phosphor-CREB.
The CUMS procedure of applied stressors during 1 week.
| Days | Duration | Stressor |
|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | 30 minutes | Shaking once per second |
| Day 2 | 2 hours | Chronic restraint stress |
| Day 3 | 3 minutes | Clip tail |
| Day 4 | 24 hours | Housing in a wet cage |
| Day 5 | 12 hours | Continuous overnight illumination |
| Day 6 | 24 hours | Water deprivation |
| Day 7 | 24 hours | Food deprivation |
Figure 2Differences showing the effects of stress/ antidepressant treatments on depressive-like behaviors in depression rats induced by CUMS. (a) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the body weight in depression rats induced by CUMS. (b) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the sucrose intake levels in depression rats induced by CUMS. (c) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the horizontal motion scores in depression rats induced by CUMS. (d) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the vertical motion scores in depression rats induced by CUMS. Differences are shown as follows: ★P < 0.05 versus control group; ★★P < 0.01 versus control group; ▲P < 0.05 versus model group; ▲▲P < 0.05 versus model group; ◆P < 0.05 versus acupuncture group; ◆◆P < 0.01 versus acupuncture group; ■■P < 0.01 versus fluoxetine group. Values are given as for 10 rats in each group. Acu: acupuncture group; FLX: fuoxetine group; Acu + H89: Acupuncture + H89 group; FLX + H89: Fluoxetine + H89 group.
Figure 3The effectiveness and validity of ICV catheterization. (a) The fixed position of ICV catheterization. (b) The rat subjected to effective ICV catheterization. (c) The structure and morphology of bilateral paracele detected with the naked eye. The bilateral paracele was suffused with blue substance after ICV injection of 1% Evans blue, suggesting the validity of ICV injection and ICV catheterization. (d) The structure and morphology of bilateral paracele screened under the fluorescence microscope. The wall of the whole bilateral paracele, including frontal, occipital, temporal and inferior horn, was suffused with Evans blue exhibiting red fluorescence.
Differences showing the effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the expression levels of hippocampal PKA-α, CREB, and p-CREB in depression rats induced by CUMS.
| Group |
| PKA- | CREB/GAPDH | p-CREB/GAPDH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 10 | 3.277 ± 0.964 | 1.673 ± 0.226 | 1.268 ± 0.405 |
| Model | 10 | 2.089 ± 0.614★★ | 1.665 ± 0.107 | 0.733 ± 0.197★★ |
| Acu | 10 | 3.185 ± 0.579▲▲ | 1.666 ± 0.124 | 1.117 ± 0.211▲ |
| FLX | 10 | 3.048 ± 0.425▲ | 1.612 ± 0.366 | 1.037 ± 0.164 |
| Acu + H89 | 10 | 3.057 ± 0.473▲ | 1.478 ± 0.463 | 0.671 ± 0.295★★,◆◆ |
| FLX + H89 | 10 | 3.067 ± 0.595▲ | 1.572 ± 0.382 | 0.619 ± 0.204★★,■■ |
Acu: acupuncture group; FLX: fluoxetine group; Acu + H89: Acupuncture + H89 group; FLX + H89: Fluoxetine + H89 group; PKA-α: protein kinase A-α; CREB: cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element-binding protein; p-CREB: Phosphor-CREB; GAPDH: glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. Differences are shown as follows: ★★P < 0.01 versus control group; ▲P < 0.05 versus model group; ▲▲P < 0.01 versus model group; ◆◆P < 0.01 versus acupuncture group; ■■P < 0.01 versus fluoxetine group. Results are presented as for 10 rats in each group.
Figure 4Differences showing the effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the expression levels of hippocampal PKA-α, CREB, and p-CREB in depression rats induced by CUMS. (a) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the expression level of hippocampal PKA-α in depression rats induced by CUMS. (b) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the expression level of hippocampal CREB in depression rats induced by CUMS. (c) The effects of stress/antidepressant treatments on the expression level of hippocampal p-CREB in depression rats induced by CUMS. Differences are shown as follows: ★★P < 0.01 versus control group; ▲P < 0.05 versus model group; ▲▲P < 0.01 versus model group; ◆◆P < 0.01 versus acupuncture group; ■■P < 0.01 versus fluoxetine group. Results are presented as for 10 rats in each group. Acu: acupuncture group; FLX: fluoxetine group; Acu + H89: Acupuncture + H89 group; FLX + H89: Fluoxetine + H89 group; PKA-α: protein kinase A-α; CREB: cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element-binding protein; p-CREB: Phosphor-CREB; GAPDH: glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase.
(a) Differences in body weight following stress/antidepressant treatments
| Group |
| 0 days | 21 days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 10 | 277.01 ± 11.10 | 363.83 ± 38.06 |
| Model | 10 | 275.24 ± 12.75 | 319.61 ± 17.95★★ |
| Acu | 10 | 281.42 ± 17.26 | 348.04 ± 31.05▲ |
| FLX | 10 | 271.93 ± 20.34 | 350.99 ± 30.49▲ |
| Acu + H89 | 10 | 256.58 ± 15.01★★,▲▲,◆◆ | 257.86 ± 28.48★★,▲▲,◆◆ |
| FLX + H89 | 10 | 250.37 ± 11.57★★,▲▲,■■ | 252.73 ± 31.61★★,▲▲,■■ |
(b) Differences in sucrose intake levels following stress/antidepressant treatments
| Group |
| 0 days | 21 days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 10 | 22.96 ± 2.52 | 36.71 ± 8.04 |
| Model | 10 | 24.57 ± 2.98 | 22.52 ± 5.92★★ |
| Acu | 10 | 24.80 ± 3.50 | 29.29 ± 7.99★,▲ |
| FLX | 10 | 25.97 ± 4.64 | 33.51 ± 5.17▲▲ |
| Acu + H89 | 10 | 25.19 ± 2.59 | 20.52 ± 4.57★★,◆◆ |
| FLX + H89 | 10 | 25.12 ± 1.98 | 13.39 ± 6.92★★,▲▲,■■,∗ |
(c) Differences in horizontal and vertical motion scores following stress/antidepressant treatments
| Group | 0 days | 21 days | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizontal | Vertical | Horizontal | Vertical | |
| Control | 65.10 ± 13.01 | 12.10 ± 4.04 | 50.70 ± 13.84 | 18.40 ± 8.76 |
| Model | 66.60 ± 14.04 | 10.00 ± 3.53 | 9.50 ± 4.97★★ | 2.10 ± 1.29★★ |
| Acu | 65.80 ± 14.40 | 10.80 ± 2.90 | 18.10 ± 7.37★★,▲ | 5.80 ± 1.81★★,▲▲ |
| FLX | 65.20 ± 13.74 | 10.30 ± 4.01 | 16.90 ± 5.30★★,▲ | 6.10 ± 2.23★★,▲▲ |
| Acu + H89 | 58.20 ± 13.66 | 9.20 ± 3.12 | 10.20 ± 8.20★★,◆ | 1.20 ± 1.03★★,◆◆ |
| FLX + H89 | 58.70 ± 12.69 | 9.50 ± 2.76 | 5.30 ± 3.80★★,▲,■■ | 1.50 ± 1.27★★,■■ |
Acu: acupuncture group; FLX: fluoxetine group; Acu + H89: Acupuncture + H89 group; FLX + H89: Fluoxetine + H89 group. Results are presented as for 10 rats in each group. Differences are shown as follows: ★P < 0.05 versus control group; ★★P < 0.01 versus control group; ▲P < 0.05 versus model group; ▲▲P < 0.05 versus model group; ◆P < 0.05 versus acupuncture group; ◆◆P < 0.01 versus acupuncture group; ■■P < 0.01 versus fluoxetine group; ∗P < 0.05 versus Acu + H89.