点燃的大脑中单胺水平的可靠性。

S Nishimura, K Yagi, S Ishida, M Seino, K Miyamoto
{"title":"点燃的大脑中单胺水平的可靠性。","authors":"S Nishimura, K Yagi, S Ishida, M Seino, K Miyamoto","doi":"10.1111/j.1440-1819.1985.tb02010.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Possible changes in the monoamine levels of the brain in relation to seizure susceptibility has been a subject of controversy for the past three decades. Since kindling was introduced as an ideal experimental model of human epilepsy, correlative studies between the monoamines and the acquisition of epileptogenesis have been strongly reinforced. The reported results, however, did not necessarily correspond among individual investigators.' :j Unless it is made clear whether or not the disagreement was due to the method they employed for quantification, the significance of the obtained results may remain obscure. We carried out a comparative study in order to explore the inter-method variability of measurement using rats placed on long-term kindling. What should concern us first is the comparison of the measured values between the brains of kindled animals and controls. When non-treated naive rats were chosen in place of sham-operated rats, there were subtle differences between the two groups. First, the level of dopamine content of the sham group was lower as compared to that of the non-treated group so that the sham animals are preferable to serve as control to the non-treated ones. The second problem that concerned us was the technical matter as to how the ani-","PeriodicalId":75857,"journal":{"name":"Folia psychiatrica et neurologica japonica","volume":"39 3","pages":"321-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1440-1819.1985.tb02010.x","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability of monoamine levels in the kindled brain.\",\"authors\":\"S Nishimura, K Yagi, S Ishida, M Seino, K Miyamoto\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1440-1819.1985.tb02010.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Possible changes in the monoamine levels of the brain in relation to seizure susceptibility has been a subject of controversy for the past three decades. Since kindling was introduced as an ideal experimental model of human epilepsy, correlative studies between the monoamines and the acquisition of epileptogenesis have been strongly reinforced. The reported results, however, did not necessarily correspond among individual investigators.' :j Unless it is made clear whether or not the disagreement was due to the method they employed for quantification, the significance of the obtained results may remain obscure. We carried out a comparative study in order to explore the inter-method variability of measurement using rats placed on long-term kindling. What should concern us first is the comparison of the measured values between the brains of kindled animals and controls. When non-treated naive rats were chosen in place of sham-operated rats, there were subtle differences between the two groups. First, the level of dopamine content of the sham group was lower as compared to that of the non-treated group so that the sham animals are preferable to serve as control to the non-treated ones. The second problem that concerned us was the technical matter as to how the ani-\",\"PeriodicalId\":75857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Folia psychiatrica et neurologica japonica\",\"volume\":\"39 3\",\"pages\":\"321-2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1985-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1440-1819.1985.tb02010.x\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Folia psychiatrica et neurologica japonica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.1985.tb02010.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia psychiatrica et neurologica japonica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.1985.tb02010.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The reliability of monoamine levels in the kindled brain.
Possible changes in the monoamine levels of the brain in relation to seizure susceptibility has been a subject of controversy for the past three decades. Since kindling was introduced as an ideal experimental model of human epilepsy, correlative studies between the monoamines and the acquisition of epileptogenesis have been strongly reinforced. The reported results, however, did not necessarily correspond among individual investigators.' :j Unless it is made clear whether or not the disagreement was due to the method they employed for quantification, the significance of the obtained results may remain obscure. We carried out a comparative study in order to explore the inter-method variability of measurement using rats placed on long-term kindling. What should concern us first is the comparison of the measured values between the brains of kindled animals and controls. When non-treated naive rats were chosen in place of sham-operated rats, there were subtle differences between the two groups. First, the level of dopamine content of the sham group was lower as compared to that of the non-treated group so that the sham animals are preferable to serve as control to the non-treated ones. The second problem that concerned us was the technical matter as to how the ani-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信