SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Parkinson's disease model in zebrafish using intraperitoneal MPTP injection.

Front Neurosci · 2023-08-25

DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1236049PMID: 37694115

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

IntroductionParkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease that severely affects the quality of life of patients and their family members. Exposure to 1-Methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) has been shown to reflect behavioral, molecular, and proteomic features of PD. This study aimed to assess the protocol for inducing PD following MPTP injection in adult zebrafish.MethodsFish were injected with 100 μg/g of MPTP intraperitoneally once or twice and then assessed on days 1 to 30 post-injection.ResultsBetween one-time and two-time injections, there was no significant difference in most locomotor parameters, expressions of tyrosine hydroxylase-2 (th2) and dopamine transporter (dat) genes, and dopaminergic neurons (tyrosine hydroxylase positive, TH+ cells) counts. However, caspase-3 levels significantly differed between one- and two-time injections on the day 1 assessment.DiscussionOver a 30-day period, the parameters showed significant differences in swimming speed, total distance traveled, tyrosine hydroxylase-1 (th1) and dat gene expressions, caspase-3 and glutathione protein levels, and TH+ cell counts. Days 3 and 5 showed the most changes compared to the control. In conclusion, a one-time injection of MPTP with delayed assessment on days 3 to 5 is a good PD model for animal studies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.