Review



azd1480  (MedChemExpress)


Bioz Verified Symbol MedChemExpress is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol MedChemExpress manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 94

    Structured Review

    MedChemExpress azd1480
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Azd1480, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 22 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/azd1480/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 94 stars, based on 22 article reviews
    azd1480 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Aerobic Exercise Promotes Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Ameliorates Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy"

    Article Title: Aerobic Exercise Promotes Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Ameliorates Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy

    Journal: CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics

    doi: 10.1002/cns.70773

    AZD1480 ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Figure Legend Snippet: AZD1480 ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.

    Techniques Used:

    AZD1480 rescues the UL‐mediated suppression of hippocampal neurogenesis, while LPS markedly attenuates the pro‐proliferative effects of running. (A) Representative images showing BrdU+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (B) AZD1480 increases the number of BrdU+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 21.29, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0094, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (C) Representative images showing Ki67+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (D) Running increases the number of UL‐induced Ki67+ cells, while AZD1480 and LPS have no significant effect on Ki67+ cell counts. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 4.058, p = 0.0139, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0092). (E) Representative images showing DCX+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (F) AZD1480 increases the number of DCX+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 10.35, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0490). (G) Representative photomicrographs of the dendritic branches of GFP+ cells in the DG. GFP+ cells were labeled with retrovirus pROVEF1a‐EGFP, which was injected in the DG. (H) AZD1480 significantly increases the total number of dendritic branches in individual GFP + newborn neurons induced by UL. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,28) = 12.20, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0012, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + RUN + LPS: p = 0.0020).
    Figure Legend Snippet: AZD1480 rescues the UL‐mediated suppression of hippocampal neurogenesis, while LPS markedly attenuates the pro‐proliferative effects of running. (A) Representative images showing BrdU+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (B) AZD1480 increases the number of BrdU+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 21.29, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0094, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (C) Representative images showing Ki67+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (D) Running increases the number of UL‐induced Ki67+ cells, while AZD1480 and LPS have no significant effect on Ki67+ cell counts. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 4.058, p = 0.0139, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0092). (E) Representative images showing DCX+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (F) AZD1480 increases the number of DCX+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 10.35, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0490). (G) Representative photomicrographs of the dendritic branches of GFP+ cells in the DG. GFP+ cells were labeled with retrovirus pROVEF1a‐EGFP, which was injected in the DG. (H) AZD1480 significantly increases the total number of dendritic branches in individual GFP + newborn neurons induced by UL. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,28) = 12.20, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0012, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + RUN + LPS: p = 0.0020).

    Techniques Used: Labeling, Injection



    Similar Products

    94
    MedChemExpress azd1480
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Azd1480, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/azd1480/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    azd1480 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    MedChemExpress jak2 inhibitor azd1480
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Jak2 Inhibitor Azd1480, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/jak2 inhibitor azd1480/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    jak2 inhibitor azd1480 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    MedChemExpress resource source identifier jak2 inhibitor azd1480 medchemexpress cat
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Resource Source Identifier Jak2 Inhibitor Azd1480 Medchemexpress Cat, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/resource source identifier jak2 inhibitor azd1480 medchemexpress cat/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    resource source identifier jak2 inhibitor azd1480 medchemexpress cat - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    95
    Selleck Chemicals azd1480
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Azd1480, supplied by Selleck Chemicals, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/azd1480/product/Selleck Chemicals
    Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    azd1480 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    95/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    95
    Selleck Chemicals azd1480 solution
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Azd1480 Solution, supplied by Selleck Chemicals, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/azd1480 solution/product/Selleck Chemicals
    Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    azd1480 solution - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    95/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    95
    Selleck Chemicals azd 1480
    <t>AZD1480</t> ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
    Azd 1480, supplied by Selleck Chemicals, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/azd 1480/product/Selleck Chemicals
    Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    azd 1480 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    95/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    AZD1480 ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.

    Journal: CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics

    Article Title: Aerobic Exercise Promotes Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Ameliorates Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy

    doi: 10.1002/cns.70773

    Figure Lengend Snippet: AZD1480 ameliorates UL‐induced cognitive dysfunction, whereas LPS significantly counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running. (A) Schematic of the experimental design showing AZD1480 and LPS interventions in UL mice. (B, C) In the open field test, there were no significant differences in total movement distance and average speed among the four groups of mice: UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.236, p = 0.3110, and F (3,36) = 1.257, p = 0.3037). (D, E) There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of total immobility time and the duration spent in the central zone of the open field for the UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH, UL + Run + LPS groups (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 1.780, p = 0.1684 and F (3,36) = 0.7831, p = 0.5112, n = 10/group in OFT). (F, G) AZD1480 ameliorated the UL‐induced working memory impairment, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running, manifested by the total entry to and time spent in the novel arm. Right arm (F) was set as the novel arm (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 9.760, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0011, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0036, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0022, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0068 for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 15.93, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0056, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001 for the total time of the novel arms, Left arm (G) was set as the novel arms (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 2.814, p = 0.0529, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH p = 0.0488, for the percentage of novel arms; One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 7.771, p = 0.0004, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0036, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run+ VH: p = 0.0005 for the total time of the novel arms, n = 10/group in T maze). (H) AZD1480 significantly improves the number of errors in UL‐induced reference memory, whereas LPS counteracts the cognitive improvements conferred by running (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 2.115, p = 0.0013, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (I) AZD1480 significantly reduces the number of errors in working memory induced by UL (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 1.623, p = 0.0283, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0273, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0006). (J) Total time to complete tasks decreased by aerobic exercise (two‐way ANOVA: F (27,324) = 3.394, p < 0.0001), Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0003, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0001, n = 10/group, data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (K) Throughout the training, UL + Static + VH, UL + Static + AZD1480, UL + Run + VH and UL + Run + LPS mice froze at comparable level during the trace interval (two‐way ANOVA, F (3,72) = 0.5261, p = 0.6658). (L, M) AZD1480 and running resulted in improved contextual and tone‐cued fear conditioning, but LPS prevented the running‐induced improvement (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 17.34, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0017, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001. One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 8.139, p = 0.0003, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0462, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0023, n = 10/group in fear conditioning). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.

    Article Snippet: At 2 weeks after UL induction, mice received daily oral gavage of either AZD1480 (HY‐10193, MCE) at 25 mg/kg or a vehicle (VH) control consisting of 0.1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO; HY‐Y0320, MCE) [ ].

    Techniques:

    AZD1480 rescues the UL‐mediated suppression of hippocampal neurogenesis, while LPS markedly attenuates the pro‐proliferative effects of running. (A) Representative images showing BrdU+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (B) AZD1480 increases the number of BrdU+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 21.29, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0094, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (C) Representative images showing Ki67+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (D) Running increases the number of UL‐induced Ki67+ cells, while AZD1480 and LPS have no significant effect on Ki67+ cell counts. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 4.058, p = 0.0139, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0092). (E) Representative images showing DCX+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (F) AZD1480 increases the number of DCX+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 10.35, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0490). (G) Representative photomicrographs of the dendritic branches of GFP+ cells in the DG. GFP+ cells were labeled with retrovirus pROVEF1a‐EGFP, which was injected in the DG. (H) AZD1480 significantly increases the total number of dendritic branches in individual GFP + newborn neurons induced by UL. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,28) = 12.20, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0012, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + RUN + LPS: p = 0.0020).

    Journal: CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics

    Article Title: Aerobic Exercise Promotes Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Ameliorates Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy

    doi: 10.1002/cns.70773

    Figure Lengend Snippet: AZD1480 rescues the UL‐mediated suppression of hippocampal neurogenesis, while LPS markedly attenuates the pro‐proliferative effects of running. (A) Representative images showing BrdU+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (B) AZD1480 increases the number of BrdU+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 21.29, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Static + AZD1480 vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0094, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p < 0.0001). (C) Representative images showing Ki67+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (D) Running increases the number of UL‐induced Ki67+ cells, while AZD1480 and LPS have no significant effect on Ki67+ cell counts. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 4.058, p = 0.0139, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p = 0.0092). (E) Representative images showing DCX+ and DAPI+ cells in the DG. (F) AZD1480 increases the number of DCX+ cells induced by UL, while LPS counteracts the neuroproliferative effects induced by running. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,36) = 10.35, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0007, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH: p < 0.0001, UL + Run + VH vs. UL + Run + LPS: p = 0.0490). (G) Representative photomicrographs of the dendritic branches of GFP+ cells in the DG. GFP+ cells were labeled with retrovirus pROVEF1a‐EGFP, which was injected in the DG. (H) AZD1480 significantly increases the total number of dendritic branches in individual GFP + newborn neurons induced by UL. (One‐way ANOVA: F (3,28) = 12.20, p < 0.0001, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Static + AZD1480: p = 0.0012, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + Run + VH < 0.0001, UL + Static + VH vs. UL + RUN + LPS: p = 0.0020).

    Article Snippet: At 2 weeks after UL induction, mice received daily oral gavage of either AZD1480 (HY‐10193, MCE) at 25 mg/kg or a vehicle (VH) control consisting of 0.1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO; HY‐Y0320, MCE) [ ].

    Techniques: Labeling, Injection