| Literature DB >> 29989070 |
Mehdy Ghaeminia1,2, Ramamoorthy Rajkumar1,2,3, Hwee-Ling Koh4, Gavin S Dawe1,2,3, Chay Hoon Tan1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Panax ginseng is one of the most commonly used medicinal herbs worldwide for a variety of therapeutic properties including neurocognitive effects. Ginsenoside Rg1 is one of the most abundant active chemical constituents of this herb with known neuroprotective, anxiolytic, and cognition improving effects.Entities:
Keywords: ginsenoside Rg1; hippocampus; long-term potentiation; medical prefrontal cortex; single unit
Year: 2017 PMID: 29989070 PMCID: PMC6035377 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgr.2017.03.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ginseng Res ISSN: 1226-8453 Impact factor: 6.060
Fig. 1Schematic representation of sites of intervention at specified distances from bregma. (A) The glass recording electrodes for single unit recording in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). (B) The monopolar electrode in the mPFC for recording evoked field potentials in response to (C) the concentric bipolar stimulating electrode at the CA1/vH. (D) A representative spike from an mPFC neuron (scale bar: 2 mV and 0.5 ms). (E) Representative evoked potential waveforms during baseline (gray) and after high frequency (black) stimulation (scale bar: 0.2 mV and 10 ms).
Fig. 2Effect of Rg1 on firing rate of medial prefrontal cortical (mPFC) neurons. (A) Percentage of neurons that showed increased, decreased or nil effect in firing in response to single dose (1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, or 10 mg/kg) or cumulative Rg1 treatment. Columns represent the mean firing rate of neurons that (B) increased or (C) decreased firing in response to single dose of Rg1 (1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, or 10 mg/kg) or (D) cumulative doses. The gray broken line in (B) and (C) indicates the time of Rg1 administration. The gray box on the x axis of (D) indicates the posttreatment recording after the last cumulative dose of Rg1. The column data labels represent the number of neurons analyzed. Data from neurons that did not respond to Rg1 treatment are not shown. All statistical comparisons were made against the baseline of the corresponding treatment. Error bars represent SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (repeated-measures analysis of variance planned comparisons). HFS, high-frequency stimulation; SEM, standard error of the mean.
Fig. 3Evoked field potential recording in the hippocampo–medial prefrontal cortical (HP–mPFC) pathway. (A) The baseline-normalized average potential recorded every 5 min showing no significant change immediately after drug or saline treatment (black arrow). After high-frequency stimulation (HFS; white arrow), induction of a persistent step-up can be observed in the saline treatment group (empty circles) but Rg1 treatment (filled circles) attenuates this long-term potentiation (LTP). (B) Thirty-minute averages of evoked field potentials in different treatment groups showing the suppression of the LTP by Rg1 treatment. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (SEM). *p < 0.005 compared to respective normal saline treatment group (one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests). fEPSP, field excitatory post-synaptic potential.