Cited by 171Stress Responses and CortisolNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Maternal licking regulates hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor transcription through a thyroid hormone–serotonin–NGFI-A signalling cascade

Open access
Hellstrom, Ian C., Dhir, Sabine K., Diorio, Josie C., Meaney, Michael J.·2012·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Variations in parental care direct phenotypic development across many species. Variations in maternal pup licking/grooming (LG) in the rat regulate the development of individual differences in hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal responses to stress. The adult offspring of mothers that show an increased frequency of pup LG have increased hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor (GR) expression and more modest pituitary–adrenal responses to stress. This parental effect is mediated by the epigenetic programming of a GR exon 1 promoter (exon 1 7 ) through the binding of the transcription factor nerve growth factor-inducible factor A (NGFI-A). In this paper, we report that: (i) the association of NGFI-A with the exon 1 7 GR promoter is dynamically regulated by mother–pup interactions; (ii) this effect is mimicked by artificial tactile stimulation comparable to that provided by pup LG; (iii) that serotonin (5-HT) induces an NGFI-A-dependent increase in GR transcription in hippocampal neurons and NGFI-A overexpression is sufficient for this effect; and (iv) that thyroid hormones and 5-HT are key mediators of the effects of pup LG and tactile stimulation on NGFI-A binding to the exon 1 7 GR promoter in hippocampus. These findings suggest that pup LG directly activates 5-HT systems to initiate intracellular signalling pathways in the hippocampus that regulate GR transcription.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2012.0223

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Maternal licking or direct tactile stimulation that mimics licking increases hippocampal expression of NGFI-A.

    “Maternal licking or direct application of tactile stimulation that mimics the sensory effects of licking increases hippocampal expression of the transcription factor, nerve growth factor-inducible factor A (NGFI-A; AKA egr-1, zif268).82”
  • In vitro, 5-HT acts through a 5-HT7 receptor to increase cAMP-dependent signaling in hippocampal neurons, resulting in elevated NGFI-A expression.

    “In vitro, 5-HT acts through a 5-HT7 receptor to increase the activity of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)-dependent signaling pathways in hippocampal neurons, resulting in elevated expression of NGFI-A.”
  • Maternal effects on hippocampal GR expression are mediated by increases in hippocampal serotonin turnover and expression of the NGFI-A transcription factor.

    “In vivo studies with rat pups or in vitro studies using cultured hippocampal neurons suggest that maternal effects on hippocampal GR expression are mediated by increases in hippocampal serotonin (5-HT) turnover and the expression of the nerve-growth factor-inducible factor-A (NGFI-A) transcription factor.78-82”
  • In cultured hippocampal neurons, the effect of 5-HT on GR expression is blocked by 5-HT7 antagonists or PKA inhibitors, mimicked by 5-HT7 agonists or cAMP analogs, and eliminated by NGFI-A knockdown.

    “In cultured hippocampal neurons the effect of 5-HT on GR expression is: (i) blocked by 5-HT7 receptor antagonists or inhibitors of protein kinase A; (ii) mimicked by 5-HT7 receptor agonists or treatments with stable cAMP analogs; and (iii) eliminated by antisense or small interfering RNA (siRNA) knockdown of NGFI-A mRNA.82,83”
  • T3 administration in the neonatal period mimics the effects of increased pup LG on NGFI-A expression and hippocampal GR programming.

    “T3 administration in neonatal period, which regulates the 5-HT systems activity, mimics the effects of increased pup LG on both NGFI-A expression and hippocampal GR programming.82-84”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. van Hasselt, F. N., Cornelisse, S., Yuan Zhang, T., Meaney, M. J., Velzing, E. H., Krugers, H. J. & Joe ¨ls, M. 2012 Maternal care received by individual pups pre- dicts hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor expression and dentate synaptic plasticity later in life. Hippocampus 22, 255 -266. (doi:10.1002/hipo.20892) · DOI · Paper page
  2. Meaney, M. J., Aitken, D. H. & Sapolsky, R. M. 1987 Thyroid hormones influence the development of hippo- campal glucocorticoid receptors in the rat: a mechanism for the effects of postnatal handling on the development of the adrenocortical stress response. Neuroendocrinology 45, 278-283. (doi:10.1159/000124741) · DOI · Paper page
  3. Turner, B. M. 2001 Chromatin and gene regulation: mol- ecular mechanisms in epigenetics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.
  4. Gonzalez, A., Lovic, V., Ward, G. R., Wainwright, P. E. & Fleming, A. S. 2001 Intergenerational effects of com- plete maternal deprivation and replacement stimulation on maternal behavior and emotionality in female rats. Dev. Psychobiol. 38, 11-32. (doi:10.1002/1098- 2302(2001)38:1,11::AID-DEV2.3.0.CO;2-B) 38 · DOI
  5. Schaefer, M., Hatcher, R. P. & Barglow, P. D. 1980 Pre- maturity and infant stimulation: a review of research. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 10, 199 -212.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hellstrom, I. C., Dhir, S. K., Diorio, J. C., & Meaney, M. J.
Affiliations
Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Meaney, Michael J.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2012-09-05
Volume
367
Issue
1601
Pages
2495-2510
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2005902017
Cited by
171
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Hope for Depression Research Foundation
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
maternal licking, NGFI-A, serotonin, thyroid hormones, transcriptional regulation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, stress response, epigenetic programming, parental care, tactile stimulation, hippocampal neurons, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Exons, Female, Hippocampus, Male, Maternal Behavior, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Protein Binding, Receptors, Glucocorticoid, Serotonin, Thyroxine, Transcription, Genetic, Triiodothyronine, Signal Transduction, Lentivirus, Rats, Long-Evans, Rats, Early Growth Response Protein 1, Primary Cell Culture

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