The threshold for intracranial self-stimulation does not increase in rats exposed to chronic unpredictable stress – A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Jenny Paola Berrio Sanchez , Jenny Wilzopolski , Katharina Hohlbaum , Otto Kalliokoski
{"title":"The threshold for intracranial self-stimulation does not increase in rats exposed to chronic unpredictable stress – A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Jenny Paola Berrio Sanchez ,&nbsp;Jenny Wilzopolski ,&nbsp;Katharina Hohlbaum ,&nbsp;Otto Kalliokoski","doi":"10.1016/j.bbr.2025.115483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The chronic unpredictable stress model is a rodent model of stress-induced anhedonia. The sucrose preference test, often used to validate it, is unreliable. Intracranial self-stimulation offers an alternative and is often cited as supporting evidence of the model's validity. Our aim was to assess whether an increased self-stimulation threshold is found after stress and if such a change correlates with decreases in sweet consumption. We searched PubMed, Embase (ovid), and Web of Science for studies in rats exposed to chronic unpredictable stress that employed intracranial self-stimulation. Thresholds for stressed and control animals were pooled from 11 studies that collectively reported on 23 different experiments. Over 50 % of the data was contributed by one research group, so a three-level meta-analytical random effects model was fit to account for methodological differences between different networks of researchers. After this adjustment, we did not find that the self-stimulation thresholds were increased in stressed rats. Pioneering experiments with positive results failed to be replicated by others, although no specific factor could be pointed to as a likely explanation. What is more, the available evidence suggests a lack of connection between sweet preference and self-stimulation, although this relationship has been seldom investigated. No study reported correlation coefficients. Methods known to mitigate biases were frequently absent, as was a transparent report of crucial study details. Our findings challenge the claim made in support of the validity of the model. Further efforts would be well-invested in assessing how reliably other tests of anhedonia have found the effects of the chronic unpredictable stress model.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8823,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Brain Research","volume":"484 ","pages":"Article 115483"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioural Brain Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432825000695","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The chronic unpredictable stress model is a rodent model of stress-induced anhedonia. The sucrose preference test, often used to validate it, is unreliable. Intracranial self-stimulation offers an alternative and is often cited as supporting evidence of the model's validity. Our aim was to assess whether an increased self-stimulation threshold is found after stress and if such a change correlates with decreases in sweet consumption. We searched PubMed, Embase (ovid), and Web of Science for studies in rats exposed to chronic unpredictable stress that employed intracranial self-stimulation. Thresholds for stressed and control animals were pooled from 11 studies that collectively reported on 23 different experiments. Over 50 % of the data was contributed by one research group, so a three-level meta-analytical random effects model was fit to account for methodological differences between different networks of researchers. After this adjustment, we did not find that the self-stimulation thresholds were increased in stressed rats. Pioneering experiments with positive results failed to be replicated by others, although no specific factor could be pointed to as a likely explanation. What is more, the available evidence suggests a lack of connection between sweet preference and self-stimulation, although this relationship has been seldom investigated. No study reported correlation coefficients. Methods known to mitigate biases were frequently absent, as was a transparent report of crucial study details. Our findings challenge the claim made in support of the validity of the model. Further efforts would be well-invested in assessing how reliably other tests of anhedonia have found the effects of the chronic unpredictable stress model.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavioural Brain Research
Behavioural Brain Research 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
383
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Behavioural Brain Research is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of articles in the field of behavioural neuroscience, broadly defined. Contributions from the entire range of disciplines that comprise the neurosciences, behavioural sciences or cognitive sciences are appropriate, as long as the goal is to delineate the neural mechanisms underlying behaviour. Thus, studies may range from neurophysiological, neuroanatomical, neurochemical or neuropharmacological analysis of brain-behaviour relations, including the use of molecular genetic or behavioural genetic approaches, to studies that involve the use of brain imaging techniques, to neuroethological studies. Reports of original research, of major methodological advances, or of novel conceptual approaches are all encouraged. The journal will also consider critical reviews on selected topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信