Cited by 100Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchStress Responses and CortisolMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Prenatal stress and subsequent exposure to chronic mild stress influence dendritic spine density and morphology in the rat medial prefrontal cortex

Open access
Michelsen, Kimmo A, van den Hove, Daniël LA, Schmitz, Christoph, Segers, Olivier, Prickaerts, Jos, Steinbusch, Harry WM·2007·BMC Neuroscience

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both prenatal stress (PS) and postnatal chronic mild stress (CMS) are associated with behavioral and mood disturbances in humans and rodents. The aim of this study was to reveal putative PS- and/or CMS-related changes in basal spine morphology and density of pyramidal neurons in the rat medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). RESULTS: We show that rats exposed to PS and/or CMS display changes in the morphology and number of basal spines on pyramidal neurons in the mPFC. CMS had a negative effect on spine densities, particularly on spines of the mushroom type, which are considered to form stronger and more stable synapses than other spine types. PS alone did not affect spine densities, but had a negative effect on the ratio of mushroom spines. In addition, PS seemed to make rats less responsive to some of the negative effects of CMS, which supports the notion that PS represents a predictive adaptive response. CONCLUSION: The observed changes may represent a morphological basis of PS- and CMS-related disturbances, and future studies in the field should not only consider total spine densities, but also separate between different spine types.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2202-8-107

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Spine loss is particularly evident at distal sites about 200 μm from the soma, and mushroom-shaped spines probably involved in established synaptic connections seem particularly vulnerable.

    “Spine loss is particularly evident at distal sites (∼200 µm from the soma), and the mushroom-shaped spines that are probably involved in established synaptic connections seem to be particularly vulnerable106.”

    From Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function (2009) · cites this paper as [106]

    The Discussion reports that chronic mild stress particularly affected mushroom spines and says they seem to form more stable synapses. But the Methods (Imaging) place the sampled sites 25–105 μm from the soma, not around 200 μm, and report no significant differences between the sampled proximal, medial and distal sites. The distal-site claim is therefore not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Michelsen, K. A., van den Hove, D. L., Schmitz, C., Segers, O., Prickaerts, J., & Steinbusch, H. W.
Affiliations
  • Åbo Akademi University (FI)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Michelsen, Kimmo A
Venue
BMC Neuroscience
Published
2007-12
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
107-107
ISSN
1471-2202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087920436
Cited by
100
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 13
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Orionin Tutkimussäätiö
  • K. Albin Johanssons Stiftelse
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
prenatal stress, chronic mild stress, dendritic spines, medial prefrontal cortex, pyramidal neurons, mushroom spines, spine density, dendritic spine morphology, predictive adaptive response, mood disorders, behavioral problems
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Newborn, Chronic Disease, Female, Male, Synaptic Transmission, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Stress, Physiological, Synapses, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Prefrontal Cortex, Microscopy, Confocal, Image Cytometry, Mood Disorders, Microscopy, Electron, Transmission, Cell Shape, Dendritic Spines, 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