Intracranial self-stimulation reverses impaired spatial learning and regulates serum microRNA levels in a streptozotocin-induced rat model of Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a therapeutic alternative for treating Alzheimer disease (AD) is ongoing. We aimed to determine the effects of intracranial self-stimulation at the medial forebrain bundle (MFB-ICSS) on spatial memory, neurodegeneration, and serum expression of microRNAs (miRNAs) in a rat model of sporadic AD created by injection of streptozotocin. We hypothesized that MFB-ICSS would reverse the behavioural effects of streptozotocin and modulate hippocampal neuronal density and serum levels of the miRNAs. METHODS: We performed Morris water maze and light-dark transition tests. Levels of various proteins, specifically amyloid-β precurser protein (APP), phosphorylated tau protein (pTAU), and sirtuin 1 (SIRT1), and neurodegeneration were analyzed by Western blot and Nissl staining, respectively. Serum miRNA expression was measured by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Male rats that received streptozotocin had increased hippocampal levels of pTAU S202/T205, APP, and SIRT1 proteins; increased neurodegeneration in the CA1, dentate gyrus (DG), and dorsal tenia tecta; and worse performance in the Morris water maze task. No differences were observed in miRNAs, except for miR-181c and miR-let-7b. After MFB-ICSS, neuronal density in the CA1 and DG regions and levels of miR-181c in streptozotocin-treated and control rats were similar. Rats that received streptozotocin and underwent MFB-ICSS also showed lower levels of miR-let-7b and better spatial learning than rats that received streptozotocin without MFB-ICSS. LIMITATIONS: The reversal by MFB-ICSS of deficits induced by streptozotocin was fairly modest. CONCLUSION: Spatial memory performance, hippocampal neurodegeneration, and serum levels of miR-let-7b and miR-181c were affected by MFB-ICSS under AD-like conditions. Our results validate the MFB as a potential target for DBS and lend support to the use of specific miRNAs as promising biomarkers of the effectiveness of DBS in combatting AD-associated cognitive deficits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".