Cited by 58Stress Responses and CortisolNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology

Male-female differences in rat hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis responses to nicotine stimulation

Rhodes, Michael E, O’Toole, Susan M, Czambel, R.Kenneth, Rubin, Robert T·2001·Brain Research Bulletin

Abstract

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis responsiveness differs physiologically and pharmacologically between the sexes (sexual diergism). Central nicotinic receptors modulate this endocrine axis. Previous studies have established that nicotine (NIC) stimulates the HPA axis; however, only male animals have been used. We have demonstrated that plasma arginine vasopressin (AVP) and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) concentrations showed greater responsiveness in male than in female rats pretreated with scopolamine (SCOP), a muscarinic antagonist, followed by physostigmine (PHYSO), an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. These results suggest that the SCOP + PHYSO effects may have resulted from an indirect nicotinic effect caused by increased synaptic acetylcholine with simultaneous muscarinic antagonism. In the present study, we investigated nicotinic cholinergic influences on HPA axis activity in male and female rats by administering NIC (0, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 mg/kg) and determining plasma AVP, ACTH, and corticosterone (CORT) responses. Male rats had a significantly greater, dose-related AVP response to NIC than did females. In contrast, female rats had significantly greater, dose-related ACTH and CORT responses to NIC than did males. Hormone responses following NIC were similar to hormone responses following SCOP + PHYSO. These results suggest nicotinic receptors influence the HPA axis differentially in male and female rats.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0361-9230(01)00488-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 63 · Cited by 58

Authors
Rhodes, M. E., O’Toole, S. M., Czambel, R. K., & Rubin, R. T.
Affiliations
Allegheny General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Rhodes, Michael E
Venue
Brain Research Bulletin
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-04
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
681-688
ISSN
0361-9230 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986867990
Cited by
58
References
63
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Research Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k05mh047363-14)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH028380, MH28380, MH 47363)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Keywords
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, nicotine, sex differences, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, vasopressin, ACTH, corticosterone, scopolamine, physostigmine, muscarinic antagonism, acetylcholine, rats
MeSH terms
Adrenocorticotropic Hormone, Animals, Arginine Vasopressin, Behavior, Animal, Cortisone, Female, Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System, Male, Nicotine, Pituitary-Adrenal System, Receptors, Nicotinic, Sex Characteristics, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Nicotinic Agonists, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review