MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antigen‐Induced Arthritis in Mice induces Depression‐Like Behavior and Microglial Activation in Hippocampus after the Resolution of Peripheral Inflammation

2018· article· en· W3118035874 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fernando Lopes, Fernando Vicentini, Nina L. Cluny, Alex J. Mathews, Benjamin H. Lee, Wagdi Almishri, Lattece Griffin, Nicole Munsie, Derek M. McKay, Mark G. Swain, Keith A. Sharkey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineInflammationArthritisDepression (economics)Rheumatoid arthritisImmunologyInternal medicineAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rheumatic Arthritis (RA) affects 1 in 100 adults globally and is of unknown etiology. RA is characterized by inflammation that affects most commonly the joints and relapsing symptoms, such as swollen, painful and tender joints, and joint stiffness. RA is also accompanied by neurological and psychological manifestations including chronic pain, fatigue, depression, social withdrawal and weight loss that together significantly reduce quality‐of‐life in those affected by RA. While efforts to understand the mechanisms of joint inflammation have led to important treatments, such as anti‐TNFα therapy, the mechanisms that lead to the chronic pain and depression observed in patients with RA, even in remission, have yet to be uncovered. The aim of this work was to develop a model that reproduces in rodents the depression‐like phenotype observed in patients with RA and assess the mechanisms underlying these changes. Antigen‐induced arthritis (AIA) was induced in 8–10 weeks old C57BL/6J mice by sensitization with methylated bovine serum albumin (mBSA) followed by intra‐articular challenge 14 days later. Depression‐like behavior was assessed using the tail suspension test (TST). Immunohistochemistry was used to investigate microglial activation (based on Iba1 immunoreactivity), and multiplex assay to measure cytokine levels in different regions of the brain. As reported previously, the peak of inflammatory response in the knee of mice with AIA was observed 24 h after challenge and inflammation was no longer observed at 13 days as gauged by the number of infiltrated neutrophils to the knee cavity. However, 13 days after the challenge, AIA mice displayed depression‐like behaviors; spending a longer immobility time in the TST compared with controls; this behavioral effect was reversed by the antidepressant imipramine. Depression‐like behaviors were not observed at the peak of joint inflammation. Iba1 expression was increased in the hippocampus of mice with AIA at 13 days, suggesting microglial activation in this region after the resolution of peripheral inflammation. Iba1 immunoreactivity in the circumventricular organs of mice 13d after AIA challenge was not different to tissue from control mice. Multiplex assay revealed an increase in KC, MCP‐1 and TNFa in the hippocampus in mice with AIA at the peak of the inflammation that was not maintained 13 days after challenge, suggesting that the maintenance of microglial activation is not dependent on local cytokine production. In conclusion, this is the first report of an animal model of arthritis that reproduces depression‐like behavior after the resolution of peripheral inflammation. This is associated with microglial activation in the hippocampus. Support or Funding Information Canadian Institutes of Health Research This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207