MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neonatal maternal separation decreases mean arterial blood pressure in adult female rats

2021· article· en· W3171465351 on OpenAlexafffund
Danuzia A. Marques, Stéphanie Fournier, Richard Kinkead

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSeparation (statistics)Blood pressureMedicineMean arterial pressureCardiologyObstetricsInternal medicineMathematicsStatisticsHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The prevalence of depression is higher in adult women than in men. Interestingly, a decrease in arterial blood pressure is commonly observed in patients affected by this mood disorder. This association raises the possibility that low blood pressure could distinguish a subgroup of the population that are at higher risk to develop this psychiatric disorder. In rats, exposure to neonatal maternal separation (NMS) leads to depressive‐like behaviors in adult animals, thus offering a simple translational model for pre‐clinic studies. In addition, a variety of studies showed that during the premenstrual period a high number of women at reproductive‐age present symptoms of irritability, emotional hypersensitivity, increased anxiety as well as depression. The impact of hormonal fluctuations on psychiatric disorders is well established, yet there are only a few studies regarding blood pressure control during different phases of the menstrual cycle. While the link between stress (including NMS) and hypertension has been well documented in males, the effects of hormonal fluctuations in pre‐clinical studies in female animals have not been explored. Based on that, we developed two main hypotheses: 1) by comparison with undisturbed (control) rats, NMS decreases arterial blood pressure in adult females. 2) NMS will increase the impact of the estrous cycle on blood pressure. Methodology Rat pups were either undisturbed (control) or subjected to NMS during which pups were placed in individual spaces into a temperature‐controlled incubator 3h/day from postnatal day 3 to 12. Once they reached adulthood, (8 weeks of age) cardiovascular parameters were measured in females using the tail cuff method. To cover all phases of the estrous cycle, we did our measurements once a week during 7 weeks, (between 8‐14 weeks of animal's life), during the morning (9‐12h) period. The data were analyzed using the two‐way ANOVA test, comparing the treatment (CTRL vs NMS) and the phases of the estrous cycle. Results We showed that the diastolic and systolic pressures of NMS females were 5% less than controls (diastolic: CTRL: 84 mmHg, NMS: 79 mmHg, p=0.0015, systolic: CTRL: 121 mmHg, NMS: 116 mmHg, p=0.02). This resulted in a significant drop in mean arterial pressure (CTRL: 96 mmHg, NMS: 91 mmHg, p=0.02). The heart rate was similar between the groups. Surprisingly, we observed no effects of the estrous cycle on the blood pressure neither in NMS nor in control animals. Discussion This demonstrates that the NMS decreases the blood pressure of our female animals in adult life as observed in humans with anxiety and depressive behaviors. This observation further validates our model and justifies new studies exploring the mechanisms by which early life stress leads to physiological and psychiatric changes in adulthood. Ultimately, this research can help us develop more precise therapies for specific groups. For instance, Licht et al 2009 demonstrated that the use of antidepressant from patients that exhibited decreased blood pressure increases their risk to present hypertension.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior→French-language works237,207→