Rodent chronic variable stress procedures: A disjunction between stress entity and impact on behaviour.

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Nicola Romanò, John Menzies
{"title":"Rodent chronic variable stress procedures: A disjunction between stress entity and impact on behaviour.","authors":"Nicola Romanò, John Menzies","doi":"10.1111/jne.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic variable stress (CVS) procedures are widely used to model depression in laboratory mice and rats. In order to explore how study design might impact experimental outcomes, we systematically documented characteristics of study design in a series of published rodent CVS studies and, in a subset of studies, measured effect sizes in the behavioural tests used to evaluate the effects of CVS. We hypothesised that CVS procedures that were longer or involved more stressors would be associated with larger effect sizes in five commonly used behavioural tests: the sucrose preference test (SPT), the tail suspension test (TST), the forced swim test (FST), the open field test (OFT) and the elevated plus maze (EPM). We also hypothesised that effect sizes would positively correlate between the behavioural tests that are believed to measure the same consequences of CVS. We searched PubMed for articles using CVS procedures with mice or rats and systematically documented the duration (the length of the CVS procedure), burden (the total number of stressors experienced by the animal) and diversity (the total number of different types of stressors used) of the CVS procedures used. We also systematically documented the design of the behavioural tests used to evaluate the effects of CVS in each study and calculated the effect sizes obtained in these tests. To ask whether effect sizes in these tests correlated with characteristics of the CVS procedure used, we used a linear model of the effect of duration, burden, and diversity on the effect size, then calculated the Euclidean distance between studies' characteristics and correlated those with the differences in effect size between studies. To explore whether effect sizes correlated between different behavioural tests, we calculated a pairwise Pearson correlation. We observed that most studies used a unique CVS procedure. In contrast to our hypothesis, the most evident impact of CVS procedure design was on FST effect sizes, where longer-duration CVS procedures with more diverse types of stressors were associated with a smaller effect size in behavioural tests. When exploring correlations between behavioural test effect sizes, we found a positive correlation between effect sizes in the TST and FST, and in the OFT and EPM, but the strongest positive correlations were between the EPM and TST, and between the EPM and FST. These data uncover complex relationships that are not necessarily in concordance with current understanding of what these tests measure. Accordingly, our data raise scientific questions around the design of CVS procedures used and the behavioural tests used to evaluate them.</p>","PeriodicalId":16535,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroendocrinology","volume":" ","pages":"e70051"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroendocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.70051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic variable stress (CVS) procedures are widely used to model depression in laboratory mice and rats. In order to explore how study design might impact experimental outcomes, we systematically documented characteristics of study design in a series of published rodent CVS studies and, in a subset of studies, measured effect sizes in the behavioural tests used to evaluate the effects of CVS. We hypothesised that CVS procedures that were longer or involved more stressors would be associated with larger effect sizes in five commonly used behavioural tests: the sucrose preference test (SPT), the tail suspension test (TST), the forced swim test (FST), the open field test (OFT) and the elevated plus maze (EPM). We also hypothesised that effect sizes would positively correlate between the behavioural tests that are believed to measure the same consequences of CVS. We searched PubMed for articles using CVS procedures with mice or rats and systematically documented the duration (the length of the CVS procedure), burden (the total number of stressors experienced by the animal) and diversity (the total number of different types of stressors used) of the CVS procedures used. We also systematically documented the design of the behavioural tests used to evaluate the effects of CVS in each study and calculated the effect sizes obtained in these tests. To ask whether effect sizes in these tests correlated with characteristics of the CVS procedure used, we used a linear model of the effect of duration, burden, and diversity on the effect size, then calculated the Euclidean distance between studies' characteristics and correlated those with the differences in effect size between studies. To explore whether effect sizes correlated between different behavioural tests, we calculated a pairwise Pearson correlation. We observed that most studies used a unique CVS procedure. In contrast to our hypothesis, the most evident impact of CVS procedure design was on FST effect sizes, where longer-duration CVS procedures with more diverse types of stressors were associated with a smaller effect size in behavioural tests. When exploring correlations between behavioural test effect sizes, we found a positive correlation between effect sizes in the TST and FST, and in the OFT and EPM, but the strongest positive correlations were between the EPM and TST, and between the EPM and FST. These data uncover complex relationships that are not necessarily in concordance with current understanding of what these tests measure. Accordingly, our data raise scientific questions around the design of CVS procedures used and the behavioural tests used to evaluate them.

啮齿动物慢性可变应激过程:应激实体与行为影响之间的分离。
慢性可变应激(CVS)程序被广泛用于实验室小鼠和大鼠的抑郁模型。为了探索研究设计如何影响实验结果,我们在一系列已发表的啮齿动物CVS研究中系统地记录了研究设计的特征,并在一部分研究中测量了用于评估CVS效果的行为测试的效应大小。我们假设长时间或涉及更多压力源的CVS过程在五种常用的行为测试中具有更大的效应大小:蔗糖偏好测试(SPT)、悬尾测试(TST)、强迫游泳测试(FST)、开阔场地测试(OFT)和升高加迷宫(EPM)。我们还假设效应大小在被认为测量CVS相同后果的行为测试之间呈正相关。我们在PubMed检索了小鼠或大鼠使用CVS程序的文章,并系统地记录了所使用CVS程序的持续时间(CVS程序的长度)、负担(动物经历的压力源总数)和多样性(使用的不同类型压力源总数)。我们还系统地记录了每项研究中用于评估CVS效果的行为测试的设计,并计算了这些测试中获得的效应量。为了了解这些试验中的效应大小是否与所使用的CVS程序的特征相关,我们使用了持续时间、负担和多样性对效应大小的影响的线性模型,然后计算研究特征之间的欧几里得距离,并将其与研究之间的效应大小差异相关联。为了探讨不同行为测试之间的效应大小是否相关,我们计算了两两Pearson相关。我们观察到大多数研究使用独特的CVS程序。与我们的假设相反,CVS程序设计最明显的影响是对FST效应大小的影响,在行为测试中,具有更多不同类型压力源的持续时间较长的CVS程序与较小的效应大小相关。在探索行为测试效应量之间的相关性时,我们发现TST和FST、OFT和EPM的效应量呈正相关,但EPM和TST、EPM和FST之间的正相关最强。这些数据揭示了复杂的关系,这些关系不一定与当前对这些测试所测量的内容的理解一致。因此,我们的数据提出了围绕CVS程序的设计和用于评估它们的行为测试的科学问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
Journal of Neuroendocrinology 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
137
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Neuroendocrinology provides the principal international focus for the newest ideas in classical neuroendocrinology and its expanding interface with the regulation of behavioural, cognitive, developmental, degenerative and metabolic processes. Through the rapid publication of original manuscripts and provocative review articles, it provides essential reading for basic scientists and clinicians researching in this rapidly expanding field. In determining content, the primary considerations are excellence, relevance and novelty. While Journal of Neuroendocrinology reflects the broad scientific and clinical interests of the BSN membership, the editorial team, led by Professor Julian Mercer, ensures that the journal’s ethos, authorship, content and purpose are those expected of a leading international publication.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信