Cited by 7Memory and Neural MechanismsMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsEstrogen and related hormone effects

Long-term effects of ageing and ovariectomy on aversive and recognition memory and DNA damage in the hippocampus of female rats

Leffa, Daniela Dimer, Damiani, Adriani Paganini, Damazio, Daiane Dal Col, Guerra, Naiana Pereira, Moretti, Morgana, de Brito, Geovana Gomes da Silva, Boeck, Carina Rodrigues, Gavioli, Elaine Cristina +1 more·2014·Acta Neuropsychiatrica

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated the influence of ageing – in particular the decrease of gonadal hormone levels during the ageing process – on the memory and the levels of DNA damage in the hippocampus of female rats. Methods: Three groups of female Wistar rats were investigated: Group I consisted of non-ovariectomised, adult animals (6 months old); Group II consisted of non-ovariectomised, aged animals (18 months old); and Group III consisted of ovariectomised, aged animals (18 months old). The memory of the animals in these groups was examined via novel object recognition and inhibitory avoidance tests. The hippocampus tissue samples of all animals were obtained via biopsy and used to quantify the DNA damage using a Comet Assay. Results: According to our findings, the process of ageing results in a change during the behavioural tests. To prevent genotoxic damage to the hippocampus caused by the ageing process, lowered hormone levels seem to be part of a protective biochemical mechanism in the body of rats. Animals that were previously submitted to an ovariectomy adapted better to these lower levels of hormones. Conclusion: Our results indicate that ovariectomy can provide beneficial long-term effects on the memory. However, this could be specific to the kind of memory examined, as the aversive memory deficits caused by ageing were not affected by ovariectomy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/neu.2013.48

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leffa, D. D., Damiani, A. P., Damazio, D. D. C., Guerra, N. P., Moretti, M., de Brito, G. G. D. S., Boeck, C. R., Gavioli, E. C., & de Andrade, V. M.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (BR)
Corresponding author
Leffa, Daniela Dimer
Venue
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
Published
2013-10-08
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
161-169
ISSN
  • 0924-2708 (ISSN-L)
  • 1601-5215
OpenAlex
W2172045082
Cited by
7
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Neuropsychiatrica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Estrogen and related hormone effects
Keywords
aging, ovariectomy, estrogen deficiency, hippocampus, DNA damage, genotoxicity, aversive memory, passive avoidance, novel object recognition, recognition memory, female rats, memory impairment
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, DNA Damage, Estradiol, Female, Hippocampus, Ovariectomy, Rats, Wistar, Recognition, Psychology, 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