THE EFFECTS OF PIRACETAM ON COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN ADULT FEMALE MICE (Mus musculus).all caps?
Behrad Salehian, Karla Hernandez, and ln Kyung Kim.
Department of Biological Science
Saddleback College
Mission Viejo, CA 92692.
Piracetamis a nootropic drugsgrammar that has been widely studied for its ability to enhance memory and learning factors in the cerebrumawkward sounding, revise. It is often referred to as a “smart drug” because it boosts verbalshort term memory and allows for deeper cognitive retention. Piracetam is a non-toxic and nonno spaceaddictive supplement with few known side effectsare you sure this belongs in the abstract? Maybe shorten the description and move to introduction. In this experiment, three groups of 6 female mice (Mus musculus) were being tested on their learning ability to complete a constructed branching maze and evaluated on the basis of completion times. All three groups were trained and also timed to run the maze three times for the first week without any given drugdrug given. The control group wasorally fedwith 0.5 mL of water. The two experimental groups, consisting of low (0.5mg) and high (1.5 mg) dosages,were given a 0.5 ml water solution of Piracetam. This feeding pattern was continued daily for the next two weeks as they were being tested in the maze every other day. The average time for the non-dosage group was 77.2±5.31 seconds (±SEM, N=6) while it was 56.3±6.16 seconds forthe low dosage group (±SEM, N=6) and 46.0±6.98 seconds for high dosage group (±SEM, N=6). The study conducted yielded that there was a significant difference between all three groups (P=0.002, ANOVA). Further analysis using Bonferroni Post-Hoc revealed that there was only a significant difference between high dosage and the control group (p<0.05give the p value obtained).
Introduction
Piracetam is a commonly used and known nootropic drug. The term nootropic meaning to “mind-bend” was coined in 1972 by Professor Corneliu E. Giurgea. He characterized such drugs for their ability to activate brain mechanisms that triggered memory improvements, enhance daily brain functions, and stimulatingstimulate nerve activity (Giurgea, 1982). Of these brain mechanisms, Piracetam allows for an increase of calcium influx in neural cells and an increase ofL-glutamate neurotransmitter (Bartsch et al, 1997).
New paragraphL-Glutamate is a common excitatory neurotransmitter found in the central nervous system. Nerve impulses activate the release of glutamate from a pre-synaptic cell which binds to a NMDA glutamate receptor located on the post-synaptic cell; stimulating it. Glutamate is responsible for cognitive functions in learning, memorization, and motor functions (Malykh and Sadaie, 2010).
New paragraphIn a research study performed in 1999 researchers showed that Piracetam enhanced the facilitation of glutamate on toNMDA glutamate receptors by binding to ligand’s on the glutamate. They concluded that this could be a therapeutic approach to treat patients with Schizophrenia (Amini-Nooshabadi H et al, 1999). When combined these two mechanism’s have been shown to increase the overall activity of the hemispheres of the cerebrum in working collaboration (Abdel-Salam, et al, 2011).
The main focus of this investigation is to determine the effects of Piracetam® on the cognitive performance of adult female mice (Mus musculus). In aprevious study done by Bartsch et. al (1997) showed that Piracetam increased membrane fluidity in the brain of aged rats that were given Piracetam orally for several weeks. They concluded that increased membrane fluidity is especially important for cell regeneration, receptor function, and brain performance. It is was hypothesized thatfemale mice (Mus musculus) given higher dosages of Piracetam will showrelatively more motor functions and memory capabilities than the control group and the low dosage group.
Methods and Materials
Subjects
In this experiment eighteen six to seven week old revise, confusing female feeding mice were bought from PetCo in Mission Viejo, California. The mice were grouped into three separate groups containing six mice. Each group was housed in individual ten gallon glass tanks in Mission Viejo, California. All three housing tanks were identical in dimensions. Each housing tank measured50.8 x 25.4 x 30.5 centimeters with a wire cover top. Each of the tanks had Aspen wood and paper shavings for bedding, a suspended water bottle, a bowl for food, a small paper house made from shoe boxes, and a small mesh exercise wheel. All mice were acclimated into their housing tanks where they were fed Kaytee Forti-diet pro health nuggets and fresh water daily. Piracetam was purchased from a health online store that offersnutritional supplements (
Procedures
On the first day,the mice were grouped into three groups (No dosage/control group, Low dosage, and High dosage). They would remain in these groups until the end of the experiment. Before the experiment all mice were pre-weighedredundant, just say “weighed”. Piracetam dosages were determined by weight for each individual mouse. Formula used for calculations:
dosage (mg)/kg(are you sure this is correct I don’t understand why it is mg/kg, what does that mean?) x weight (kg) = mg of dosage per mouse.
The suggested minimal dosage (25mg per kg body weight) and the maximal maximum dosage (75mg per kg bodyweight) were respectivelyredundant used for low and high dosage groupsbreak the sentence up into 3 sentences.After final calculations, low dosage experimental group received 5 mg of Piracetam per mouse and 15 mg of Piracetam per mouse for high dosage group.During week one each mouse were taken from their assigned groups and placed into a branched maze and timed for completion to the end of the maze. The maze was constructed from plastic Lego® building blocksthat measured 86.4 by 61 centimeters in diameterconfusing, the blocks or the maze? and placed on a white board. This would allow for easy clean up to eliminate the odor produce by the miceexplain why you need to remove odor. No drugs were administered at any time during this week; mice were only timed every other day for a full week length. In the second week Piracetam dosages were pre-weighed at Saddleback College and placed into small test tubes, 0.5 milliliters of distilled water were dispensed into each test tube using a micropipette. Throughout this week and the following week each group were given their corresponding amount’s every day orally in the morning using a disposable five milliliter pipette. So how did you feed it to them?The mice were held by pinching the extra skin located on their back of neck known as scruffingwhy did you need to scruff them?. Each mouse was placed back into the maze every other day during the evening hours and timed for completion of the maze circuit. Six sets of data were collected and were used for further analysis.
Results
The average time ofthe maze completion for the control group with no Piracetam collect was 77.22 ± 5.32 seconds (Mean ± S.E.M., N=6); low dosage group fed with 5mg Piracetam averaged 56.31 ± 6.16 seconds (Mean ± S.E.M., N=6); High dosage group with 15spacemg of Piracetam averaged 46.00± 6.98 seconds (Mean ± S.E.M., N=6). A comparison graph of completion times of maze for all groups is presented in figure 1. All sets of data were then analyzed with ANOVA and further corrected with Bonferroni Post Hoc. ANOVA analysis yields that there is a significance difference between all groups (p < 0.002). what is this the average of? The average of all trials? Maybe you should be comparing the first trial of each and make this a new graph. Then you can make another graph comparing the second trial of each. That way you can see the improvement from one trial to the next. This is confusing because I don’t know which trial this data is for.
Figure 1. The effects of Piracetam on cognitive performance in adult female mice to finish the maze. High dosage of Piracetam however did significantly affect mice’s cognitive performance compare to non-dosage (p < 0.002, ANOVA with Bonferroni correction). Error bars indicate ± SEM.
Using the Bonferroni post hoc correctionare you sure this is what the test is called? indicatestense, must be past tense throughout that there was not a significant difference within the runs of the control group and low dosage experimental group (p > 0.05*give the value); there was also no statistical difference between the runs of low dosage and high dosage experimental groups (p > 0.05*). There was, however a significant difference between the control group and the high dosage experimental group (p < 0.05*). These data are presented in table 1.
Comparison / Significant? (P <0.05?) / tNon-dosage vs. Low dosage / No / 2.388
Non-dosage vs. High dosage / Yes / 3.566
Low dosage vs. High dosage / No / 1.178
Table 1.Statistical comparison between three groups usingBonferroni Post Hoc correction. Post Hoc test collected by 95% confidence level.is this table necessary? Teh will doc you points!
Discussion
This experiment demonstrated that our hypothesis was provennothing is ever proven, supported, refuted, wrong. Although there was a significant difference between the control group and the high dosage group, there was however no significant difference between the low dosage group when compared to the high dosage and control group (See Table 1). The investigators suggested that the reason why this may have occurred is because the low dosage amount of (5mg/0.5mL of water) is not a sufficient dosage amount to make a noticeable difference.On the other hand, the experimental group with the higher dosage showed a large improvement on times and performance throughout the experiment. Concluding that Piracetam given in larger quantitiesdoes in fact, allow the mice to complete the maze in a faster time period due to improved memorization recall. These results were generated from ANOVA and Bonferroni correction analysis on the mean values of maze completion time for each group during the last two weeks (see Figure 1).repetitive
Why do you wipe it down? What could this due to results if you don’t wipe it down? A little more detail would be helpful.Throughout this experiment measures were taken to control the odor and scent left behind by the mice when placed into the maze. Mice leave scent and feces as a tracking mechanism (Bodyak, 1999).This belongs in methods. The maze was wiped down using a diluted anti-bacterial spray after each run. Since some mice expel more waste then others some, it could have potentially caused a slight error in time. If you wiped it down thoroughly, i don’t see how some mice could track better than others, although they may be able to still track better in subsequent trials. Error in time? Maybe you mean to say that subsequent trials could have been faster due to error associated with tracking, etc. the way you have it is vague, make it more specific
I would have said, “although the mice memories seem to have improved, it is unclear whether there are significant health risks associated with this compound. In order to better understand if this compound is safe for human consumption, further studies of the side effects of this compound must be studied.” For further study,we propose that a follow-up experiment be performed to observe if there are any behavioral or physical side effects on mice that could potentially cause serious health risks. Such investigations include observing the rate of CO2 production, heart rate, and blood pressure. Behavioral test would examine stress, anxiety, and aggression levels; which have been seen to decrease in humans while taking Piracetam.
Acknowledgments
The researchers would like to sincerely thank Professor Teh for the guidance, assistance, and resource preparation that made this experiment possible.The researchers would also like to thank Saddleback College and the Department of Biological Sciences for allowing us to borrow the equipment needed to conduct our research.for providing the necessary materials… a little more academic sounding
Literature Citied
Indent second and subsequent lines. Did you use all these at least once?
Abdel-Salam, Omar M. E., Khadrawy, Yasser A., Salem, Neveen A. and Sleem, Amany A., 2011, Oxidative Stress in a Model of Toxic Demyelination in Rat Brain: The Effect of Piracetam and Vinpocetine. Springer Science and Business Media, 36:1062–1072
Amini-Nooshabadi H, Akhondzadeh S, Davari-Ashtiani R, Noorbala AA, 1999, Piracetam in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: Implications for the Glutamate Hypothesis of Schizophrenia.Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics24(5): 369-74
Bartsch R., Rostock A., Scheuer K., Koch S., Muller W., 1997, Effects of Piracetam on Membrane Fluidity in the Aged Mouse, Rat, and Human Brain. Biochemical Pharmacology.
53(2): 135-140
Braunwald, E., Drachman, D.B., Fauci, A.S., Kasper, D.L., Martin, J.B., Myasthenia G. 1998, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 14th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill (Health Professions Division)
Bodyak, Natalya., Slotnick, Burton., Performance of Mice in an Automated Olfactometer: Odor Detection, Discrimination and Odor Memory.Oxford Journal, 24(6): 637-645
Giurgea, C.E. 1982, The Nootropic Concept and Its Prospective Implications. Drug Development Research, 2(5): 441-446
KohichiTanaka, 2002. Functions of Glutamate Transporters in the Brain. Neuroscience Research, 37(1): 15-19
Malykh, G. Andrei, Sadaie, M Reza., 2010. Piracetam and Piracetam-Like DrugsFrom Basic Science to Novel Clinical Applications to CNS Disorders. NovoMed Consulting, 70(3): 287-312
Matton, A., Engelborghs, S., Bollengier, F., Finne, E. and Vanhaeist, L., 1996, Modulating Effect of the Nootropic Drug, Piracetam on Stress- and Subsequent Morphine-Induced Prolactin Secretion in Male Rats. British Journal of Pharmacology, 117: 502-506
Review Form
Department of Biological Sciences
SaddlebackCollege, Mission Viejo, CA92692
Author (s): Behrad Salehian, Karla Hernandez, and ln Kyung Kim.
Title:THE EFFECTS OF PIRACETAM ON COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN ADULT FEMALE MICE (Mus musculus).
Summary:Three groups of mice were tested, one group given a high dosage of piracatem, another given a low dose, and a third given no dose. They then put these subjects in a maze and timed the time it took to reach the end. The high and low dosage mice were aster than the non dosage. There was no difference between low and high dosage.
Summarize the paper succinctly and dispassionately. Do not criticize here, just show that you understood the paper.
General Comments
I think the experiment is well thought out and useful. This could be a potentially helpful compound. I like the setup of the experiment. The strengths of the paper are that it is easy to follow. The weakness is that some things aren’t explained very well and you need to expand on them. Also, revise the paper for grammatical mistakes. Make sure that the conclusion and the materials and methods don’t interlap. Also, separate all the paper into paragraphs more, where one paragraph discusses a certain thing, and the next discusses a new thing. Sometimes its difficult to follow because one paragraph discusses many different things. Also, you don’t really explain your graph. I’m assuming its just the average of all trials, but perhaps more data could be extrapolated if you separated the first, 2nd and 3rd trials so we can see if the mice learn the maze better after each trial.
Generally explain the paper’s strengths and weaknesses and whether they are serious, or important to our current state of knowledge.
Technical Criticism
Review technical issues, organization and clarity. Provide a table of typographical errors, grammatical errors, and minor textual problems. It's not the reviewer's job to copy Edit the paper, mark the manuscript.
Some grammar, tense, and organization issues, revise thoroughly. This paper was a rough draft.
This paper was a final versionxThis paper was a rough draft.
Recommendation
This paper should be published with revision
This paper should be published as is
x This paper should be published with revision
This paper should not be published