CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Stress Responses and CortisolMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exercise Improves Cognitive Responses to Psychological Stress through Enhancement of Epigenetic Mechanisms and Gene Expression in the Dentate Gyrus

Open access
Collins, Andrew, Hill, Louise E., Chandramohan, Yalini, Whitcomb, Daniel, Droste, Susanne K., Reul, Johannes M. H. M.·2009·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0004330PMC PMC2628725
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We have shown previously that exercise benefits stress resistance and stress coping capabilities. Furthermore, we reported recently that epigenetic changes related to gene transcription are involved in memory formation of stressful events. In view of the enhanced coping capabilities in exercised subjects we investigated epigenetic, gene expression and behavioral changes in 4-weeks voluntarily exercised rats. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Exercised and control rats coped differently when exposed to a novel environment. Whereas the control rats explored the new cage for the complete 30-min period, exercised animals only did so during the first 15 min after which they returned to sleeping or resting behavior. Both groups of animals showed similar behavioral responses in the initial forced swim session. When re-tested 24 h later however the exercised rats showed significantly more immobility behavior and less struggling and swimming. If rats were killed at 2 h after novelty or the initial swim test, i.e. at the peak of histone H3 phospho-acetylation and c-Fos induction, then the exercised rats showed a significantly higher number of dentate granule neurons expressing the histone modifications and immediate-early gene induction. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Thus, irrespective of the behavioral response in the novel cage or initial forced swim session, the impact of the event at the dentate gyrus level was greater in exercised rats than in control animals. Furthermore, in view of our concept that the neuronal response in the dentate gyrus after forced swimming is involved in memory formation of the stressful event, the observations in exercised rats of enhanced neuronal responses as well as higher immobility responses in the re-test are consistent with the reportedly improved cognitive performance in these animals. Thus, improved stress coping in exercised subjects seems to involve enhanced cognitive capabilities possibly resulting from distinct epigenetic mechanisms in dentate gyrus neurons.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0004330

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Representative images of anti-P(Ser10)-Ac(Lys14) (left panels) and anti-c-Fos (right panels) immuno-staining in the dorsal blade of the dentate gyrus of control rats under baseline conditions or at 2 h after novelty exposure or forced swimming. Black arrows indicate positive nuclear immuno-staining. Immunohistochemistry and the challenge tests were conducted as described in the Materials and Methods.
Figure 1 Representative images of anti-P(Ser10)-Ac(Lys14) (left panels) and anti-c-Fos (right panels) immuno-staining in the dorsal blade of the dentate gyrus of control rats under baseline conditions or at 2 h after novelty exposure or forced swimming. Black arrows indicate positive nuclear immuno-staining. Immunohistochemistry and the challenge tests were conducted as described in the Materials and Methods.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effect of novelty exposure on the number of P(Ser10)-Ac(Lys14)+ (Left panels A, B, and C) and c-Fos+ neurons (right panels D, E and F) in the dentate gyrus of control, sedentary and 4-weeks exercised rats. A and D show data on total number of immuno-positive neurons in the dentate gyrus whereas in B and E and in C and F data are depicted separately for the dorsal blade and the ventral blade, respectively. Rats were allowed to voluntarily exercise by giving them access to a running wheel in their home cage. Data are expressed as the number of immuno-positive neurons (mean±SEM, n = 6) in the dentate gyrus of a 10-µm section. For additional information, see Materials and Methods. Statistical analyses: Two-way ANOVA: A, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 12.823, P = 0.002, Effect of novelty: F(1,20) = 93.616, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x novelty: F(1,20) = 4.808, P = 0.043; B, Effect of Novelty: F(1,20) = 163.33, P<0.0005; C, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 13.346, P = 0.002; D, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 7.392, P = 0.013, Effect of novelty: F(1,20) = 15.921, P = 0.001, Interaction exercise x novelty: F(1,20) = 7.203, P = 0.014; E, Effect of novelty: F(1,20) = 33.302, P<0.0005; F, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 11.827, P = 0.003, interaction exercise x novelty: F(1,20) = 16.875, P = 0.001. *, P<0.05, compared to the respective Baseline group; +, P<0.05, compared to the respective Control group, post-hoc Bonferroni test.
Figure 2 Effect of novelty exposure on the number of P(Ser10)-Ac(Lys14)+ (Left panels A, B, and C) and c-Fos+ neurons (right panels D, E and F) in the dentate gyrus of control, sedentary and 4-weeks exercised rats. A and D show data on total number of immuno-positive neurons in the dentate gyrus whereas in B and E and in C and F data are depicted separately for the dorsal blade and the ventral blade, respectively. Rats were allowed to voluntarily exercise by giving them access to a running wheel in their home cage. Data are expressed as the number of immuno-positive neurons (mean±SEM, n = 6) in the dentate gyrus of a 10-µm section. For additional information, see Materials and Methods. Statistical analyses: Two-way ANOVA: A, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 12.823, P = 0.002, Effect of novelty: F(1,20) = 93.616, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x novelty: F(1,20) = 4.808, P = 0.043; B, Effect of Novelty: F(1,20) = 163.33, P<0.0005; C, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 13.346, P = 0.002; D, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 7.392, P = 0.013, Effect of novelty: F(1,20) = 15.921, P = 0.001, Interaction exercise x novelty: F(1,20) = 7.203, P = 0.014; E, Effect of novelty: F(1,20) = 33.302, P<0.0005; F, Effect of exercise: F(1,20) = 11.827, P = 0.003, interaction exercise x novelty: F(1,20) = 16.875, P = 0.001. *, P<0.05, compared to the respective Baseline group; +, P<0.05, compared to the respective Control group, post-hoc Bonferroni test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Behavior of control and exercised rats during exposure to a novel environment, i.e. a new cage in a brightly lit (500 lx) room. Changes in walking (A), rearing (B), stationary (C) and lying behavior (D) were scored every 10 sec throughout the 30-min novelty exposure. Data were binned in 5-min time bins and expressed as behavioral counts (mean±SEM, n = 6). Statistical analyses: Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures: A, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 5.387, P = 0.001, Effect of exercise: (F1,9) = 4.739, P = 0.057, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 1.331, not significant; B, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 15.545, P<0.0005, Effect of exercise: F(1,9) = 14.263, P = 0.004, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 1.305, not significant; C, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 0.153, not significant, Effect of exercise: F(1,9) = 1.878, not significant, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 7.881, P<0.0005; D, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 11.529, P<0.0005, Effect of exercise: F(1,9) = 11.332, P = 0.008, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 9.130, P<0.0005. *, P<0.05, Student's t-test.
Figure 3 Behavior of control and exercised rats during exposure to a novel environment, i.e. a new cage in a brightly lit (500 lx) room. Changes in walking (A), rearing (B), stationary (C) and lying behavior (D) were scored every 10 sec throughout the 30-min novelty exposure. Data were binned in 5-min time bins and expressed as behavioral counts (mean±SEM, n = 6). Statistical analyses: Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures: A, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 5.387, P = 0.001, Effect of exercise: (F1,9) = 4.739, P = 0.057, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 1.331, not significant; B, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 15.545, P<0.0005, Effect of exercise: F(1,9) = 14.263, P = 0.004, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 1.305, not significant; C, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 0.153, not significant, Effect of exercise: F(1,9) = 1.878, not significant, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 7.881, P<0.0005; D, Effect of time: F(5,45) = 11.529, P<0.0005, Effect of exercise: F(1,9) = 11.332, P = 0.008, Interaction time x exercise: F(5,45) = 9.130, P<0.0005. *, P<0.05, Student's t-test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Effect of forced swimming on the number of P(Ser10)-Ac(Lys14)+ (Left panels A, B, and C) and c-Fos+ neurons (right panels D, E and F) in the dentate gyrus of control, sedentary and 4-weeks exercised rats. A and D show data on total number of immuno-positive neurons in the dentate gyrus whereas in B and E and in C and F data are depicted separately for the dorsal blade and the ventral blade, respectively. Data are expressed as the number of immuno-positive neurons (mean±SEM, n = 6) in the dentate gyrus of a 10-µm section. For additional information, see Materials and Methods. Statistical analyses: Two-way ANOVA: A, Effect of exercise: F(1,24) = 3.495, P = 0.077, Effect of forced swimming: F(1,24) = 32.292, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x forced swimming: F(1,24) = 4.135, P = 0.056; B, Effect of exercise: F(1,24) = 21.144, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x forced swimming: F(1,24) = 3.257, P = 0.087; D, Effect of exercise: F(1,24) = 5.598, P = 0.026, Effect of forced swimming: F(1,24) = 59.533, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x forced swimming: F(1,24) = 4.993, P = 0.035; E, Effect of forced swimming: F(1,24) = 38.318, P<0.0005. *, P<0.05, compared to the respective Baseline group; +, P<0.05, compared to the respective Control group, post-hoc Bonferroni test.
Figure 4 Effect of forced swimming on the number of P(Ser10)-Ac(Lys14)+ (Left panels A, B, and C) and c-Fos+ neurons (right panels D, E and F) in the dentate gyrus of control, sedentary and 4-weeks exercised rats. A and D show data on total number of immuno-positive neurons in the dentate gyrus whereas in B and E and in C and F data are depicted separately for the dorsal blade and the ventral blade, respectively. Data are expressed as the number of immuno-positive neurons (mean±SEM, n = 6) in the dentate gyrus of a 10-µm section. For additional information, see Materials and Methods. Statistical analyses: Two-way ANOVA: A, Effect of exercise: F(1,24) = 3.495, P = 0.077, Effect of forced swimming: F(1,24) = 32.292, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x forced swimming: F(1,24) = 4.135, P = 0.056; B, Effect of exercise: F(1,24) = 21.144, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x forced swimming: F(1,24) = 3.257, P = 0.087; D, Effect of exercise: F(1,24) = 5.598, P = 0.026, Effect of forced swimming: F(1,24) = 59.533, P<0.0005, Interaction exercise x forced swimming: F(1,24) = 4.993, P = 0.035; E, Effect of forced swimming: F(1,24) = 38.318, P<0.0005. *, P<0.05, compared to the respective Baseline group; +, P<0.05, compared to the respective Control group, post-hoc Bonferroni test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Behavior of control and exercised rats in the forced swim test. Rats were subjected to an initial test of 15 min in 25°C-water followed by a 5-min re-test 24 h later. Immobility, struggling and swimming behavior during the test (left panels) and re-test (right panels) was scored every 10 sec. Data are expressed as the accumulated behavioral scores (mean±SEM, n = 6). *, P<0.05, Student's t-test.
Figure 5 Behavior of control and exercised rats in the forced swim test. Rats were subjected to an initial test of 15 min in 25°C-water followed by a 5-min re-test 24 h later. Immobility, struggling and swimming behavior during the test (left panels) and re-test (right panels) was scored every 10 sec. Data are expressed as the accumulated behavioral scores (mean±SEM, n = 6). *, P<0.05, Student's t-test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Effect of forced swimming on c-Fos expression in the nucleus accumbens of control and exercised rats. A and B show representative images of anti-c-Fos immuno-staining in an area of the nucleus accumbens dorso-lateral to the anterior commissure (AC). This area comprises parts of both the core and shell regions. Black arrows indicate positive nuclear immuno-staining. C shows the number of c-Fos+ neurons in this area of control and exercised rats under baseline conditions and at 2 h after forced swimming. Statistical analysis: Two-way ANOVA: Effect of forced swimming: F(1,16) = 38.157, P<0.0005. *, P<0.05, compared to the respective Baseline group, post-hoc Bonferroni test.
Figure 6 Effect of forced swimming on c-Fos expression in the nucleus accumbens of control and exercised rats. A and B show representative images of anti-c-Fos immuno-staining in an area of the nucleus accumbens dorso-lateral to the anterior commissure (AC). This area comprises parts of both the core and shell regions. Black arrows indicate positive nuclear immuno-staining. C shows the number of c-Fos+ neurons in this area of control and exercised rats under baseline conditions and at 2 h after forced swimming. Statistical analysis: Two-way ANOVA: Effect of forced swimming: F(1,16) = 38.157, P<0.0005. *, P<0.05, compared to the respective Baseline group, post-hoc Bonferroni test.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 145

Related

Metadata

Authors
Collins, A., Hill, L. E., Chandramohan, Y., Whitcomb, D., Droste, S. K., & Reul, J. M. H. M.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Reul, Johannes M. H. M.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2009-01-30
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
e4330
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0004330
PMC
PMC2628725
OpenAlex
W2065907989
Cited by
145
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
physical activity, psychological stress, stress coping, epigenetic mechanisms, dentate gyrus, histone H3 phosphorylation, histone acetylation, c-fos, immediate early genes, forced swim test, novelty exploration, stress memory, gene expression, hippocampus
MeSH terms
Acetylation, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Gene Expression Regulation, Histones, Male, Memory, Neurons, Physical Conditioning, Animal, Stress, Psychological, Gene Expression, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos, Genes, fos, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Dentate Gyrus, Epigenesis, Genetic, 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