{"title":"Tests for learning and memory in rodent regulatory studies","authors":"Charles V. Vorhees , Michael T. Williams","doi":"10.1016/j.crtox.2024.100151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>For decades, regulatory guidelines for safety assessment in rodents for drugs, chemicals, pesticides, and food additives with developmental neurotoxic potential have recommended a single test of learning and memory (L&M). In recent years some agencies have requested two such tests. Given the importance of higher cognitive function to health, and the fact that different types of L&M are mediated by different brain regions assessing higher functions represents a step forward in providing better evidence-based protection against adverse brain effects. Given the myriad of tests available for assessing L&M in rodents this leads to the question of which tests best fit regulatory guidelines. To address this question, we begin by describing the central role of two types of L&M essential to all mammalian species and the regions/networks that mediate them. We suggest that the tests recommended possess characteristics that make them well suited to the needs in regulatory safety studies. By brain region, these are (1) the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex for spatial navigation, which assesses explicit L&M for reference and episodic memory and (2) the striatum and related structures for egocentric navigation, which assesses implicit or procedural memory and path integration. Of the tests available, we suggest that in this context, the evidence supports the use of water mazes, specifically, the Morris water maze (MWM) for spatial L&M and the Cincinnati water maze (CWM) for egocentric/procedural L&M. We review the evidentiary basis for these tests, describe their use, and explain procedures that optimize their sensitivity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11236,"journal":{"name":"Current Research in Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000045/pdfft?md5=4cdf122e9c38230165b1676d856c4200&pid=1-s2.0-S2666027X24000045-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Research in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
For decades, regulatory guidelines for safety assessment in rodents for drugs, chemicals, pesticides, and food additives with developmental neurotoxic potential have recommended a single test of learning and memory (L&M). In recent years some agencies have requested two such tests. Given the importance of higher cognitive function to health, and the fact that different types of L&M are mediated by different brain regions assessing higher functions represents a step forward in providing better evidence-based protection against adverse brain effects. Given the myriad of tests available for assessing L&M in rodents this leads to the question of which tests best fit regulatory guidelines. To address this question, we begin by describing the central role of two types of L&M essential to all mammalian species and the regions/networks that mediate them. We suggest that the tests recommended possess characteristics that make them well suited to the needs in regulatory safety studies. By brain region, these are (1) the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex for spatial navigation, which assesses explicit L&M for reference and episodic memory and (2) the striatum and related structures for egocentric navigation, which assesses implicit or procedural memory and path integration. Of the tests available, we suggest that in this context, the evidence supports the use of water mazes, specifically, the Morris water maze (MWM) for spatial L&M and the Cincinnati water maze (CWM) for egocentric/procedural L&M. We review the evidentiary basis for these tests, describe their use, and explain procedures that optimize their sensitivity.