Raint, and the distance travelled and swimming speed values were significantly lower than the values observed in unstressed Title Loaded From File animals (FOR) (Tukey, P,0.001), but were not significantly different from SAL and RES (5) + SAL. There were no significant differences in the locomotor activity between the animals that were submitted to 3 or 5 min of restraint prior to formaldehyde subcutaneous injection (Figure 1).mg.kg21) on the response to formaldehyde after 5 min of restraint was evaluated. For this purpose, 32 fish were randomly divided into 4 groups: saline +5 min of restraint 10457188 + saline (SAL + RES (5) + SAL, n = 8), saline +5 min of restraint + formaldehyde (SAL + RES (5) + FOR, n = 8), naloxone +5 min of restraint + saline (NAL + RES (5) + SAL, n = 8) and naloxone +5 min of restraint + formaldehyde (NAL + RES (5) 16574785 + FOR, n = 8). Locomotor activity was recorded for 5 min (baseline) before the intraperitoneal injection of saline or naloxone, depending of the experimental group. After 30 min, the fish were submitted to 5 min of restraint, followed by the subcutaneous injection of saline or 3 formaldehyde, and the locomotor activity was recorded for 5 min (poststimulus) (Figure S3).Statistical analysisThe cortisol data were not normally distributed; therefore, a log10 Title Loaded From File transformation was performed. After transformation, the data presented a normal distribution (Kolmogorov mirnov test, P.0.05) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test, P.0.05); therefore a one-way ANOVA followed by a post-hoc Tukey’s test (P,0.05) were performed to compare the cortisol levels between the experimental groups. The locomotor activity (swimming speed and distance travelled) in experiments 1, 2, 3 and 4 and in the sham group presented a normal distribution (Kolmogorov mirnov test, P.0.05) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test, P.0.05); therefore a oneway ANOVA was performed to compare the locomotor activity between the experimental groups in each experiment. When significant main effects were identified, post-hoc Tukey’s tests (P,0.05) were used to compare the locomotor activity between the experimental groups. In experiment 2, a two-way ANOVA was also performed to evaluate the effects of the duration of the restraint over time (0, 5, 10 and 15 min).Experiment 2: Time course of the inhibition of the nociceptive response induced by restraintThere was a significant effect of the time on the inhibition of the locomotor response to formaldehyde induced by 3 min of restraint (ANOVA one-way, F4,34 16.95, P,0.001). The distance travelled and the swimming speed values were significantly lower than those presented by non-immobilized animals when formaldehyde was applied immediately after restraint (0 min) and 5 min after restraint (Tukey, P,0.001). The formaldehyde injections 10 and 15 min after the restraint promoted increases in locomotor activity similar to those presented by non-immobilized animals (Figure 2). The two-way ANOVA analysis demonstrated no significant effect of the duration of the restraint and the time of injection6duration of restraint interaction on the locomotor response to formaldehyde (F1,54 0.029, P = 0,865 and F3,54 2.06, P = 0.116, respectively). A significant effect was observed for the time of injection on the locomotor response to formaldehyde (F3,54 = 18.255, P,0,001). There was a significant effect of the time on the inhibition of the locomotor response to formaldehyde induced by 5 min of restraint (ANOVA one-way, F4,32 = 6.71, P,0.001). The.Raint, and the distance travelled and swimming speed values were significantly lower than the values observed in unstressed animals (FOR) (Tukey, P,0.001), but were not significantly different from SAL and RES (5) + SAL. There were no significant differences in the locomotor activity between the animals that were submitted to 3 or 5 min of restraint prior to formaldehyde subcutaneous injection (Figure 1).mg.kg21) on the response to formaldehyde after 5 min of restraint was evaluated. For this purpose, 32 fish were randomly divided into 4 groups: saline +5 min of restraint 10457188 + saline (SAL + RES (5) + SAL, n = 8), saline +5 min of restraint + formaldehyde (SAL + RES (5) + FOR, n = 8), naloxone +5 min of restraint + saline (NAL + RES (5) + SAL, n = 8) and naloxone +5 min of restraint + formaldehyde (NAL + RES (5) 16574785 + FOR, n = 8). Locomotor activity was recorded for 5 min (baseline) before the intraperitoneal injection of saline or naloxone, depending of the experimental group. After 30 min, the fish were submitted to 5 min of restraint, followed by the subcutaneous injection of saline or 3 formaldehyde, and the locomotor activity was recorded for 5 min (poststimulus) (Figure S3).Statistical analysisThe cortisol data were not normally distributed; therefore, a log10 transformation was performed. After transformation, the data presented a normal distribution (Kolmogorov mirnov test, P.0.05) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test, P.0.05); therefore a one-way ANOVA followed by a post-hoc Tukey’s test (P,0.05) were performed to compare the cortisol levels between the experimental groups. The locomotor activity (swimming speed and distance travelled) in experiments 1, 2, 3 and 4 and in the sham group presented a normal distribution (Kolmogorov mirnov test, P.0.05) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test, P.0.05); therefore a oneway ANOVA was performed to compare the locomotor activity between the experimental groups in each experiment. When significant main effects were identified, post-hoc Tukey’s tests (P,0.05) were used to compare the locomotor activity between the experimental groups. In experiment 2, a two-way ANOVA was also performed to evaluate the effects of the duration of the restraint over time (0, 5, 10 and 15 min).Experiment 2: Time course of the inhibition of the nociceptive response induced by restraintThere was a significant effect of the time on the inhibition of the locomotor response to formaldehyde induced by 3 min of restraint (ANOVA one-way, F4,34 16.95, P,0.001). The distance travelled and the swimming speed values were significantly lower than those presented by non-immobilized animals when formaldehyde was applied immediately after restraint (0 min) and 5 min after restraint (Tukey, P,0.001). The formaldehyde injections 10 and 15 min after the restraint promoted increases in locomotor activity similar to those presented by non-immobilized animals (Figure 2). The two-way ANOVA analysis demonstrated no significant effect of the duration of the restraint and the time of injection6duration of restraint interaction on the locomotor response to formaldehyde (F1,54 0.029, P = 0,865 and F3,54 2.06, P = 0.116, respectively). A significant effect was observed for the time of injection on the locomotor response to formaldehyde (F3,54 = 18.255, P,0,001). There was a significant effect of the time on the inhibition of the locomotor response to formaldehyde induced by 5 min of restraint (ANOVA one-way, F4,32 = 6.71, P,0.001). The.
Posted inUncategorized