啮齿动物调控研究中的学习和记忆测试

IF 2.9 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Charles V. Vorhees , Michael T. Williams
{"title":"啮齿动物调控研究中的学习和记忆测试","authors":"Charles V. Vorhees ,&nbsp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;M and the Cincinnati water maze (CWM) for egocentric/procedural L&amp;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":"{\"title\":\"Tests for learning and memory in rodent regulatory studies\",\"authors\":\"Charles V. Vorhees ,&nbsp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;M and the Cincinnati water maze (CWM) for egocentric/procedural L&amp;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}","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

摘要

几十年来,针对具有发育神经毒性潜能的药物、化学品、杀虫剂和食品添加剂的啮齿类动物安全评估监管指南一直建议进行单一的学习和记忆(L&M)测试。近年来,一些机构要求进行两项此类测试。鉴于高级认知功能对健康的重要性,以及不同类型的 L&M 由不同脑区介导的事实,评估高级功能代表着在提供更好的循证保护以防止对大脑的不良影响方面向前迈进了一步。鉴于评估啮齿类动物 L&M 的测试多种多样,这就产生了一个问题:哪些测试最符合监管准则?为了解决这个问题,我们首先描述了对所有哺乳动物物种都至关重要的两类 L&M 的核心作用以及介导它们的区域/网络。我们认为,所推荐的测试具有非常适合监管安全性研究需要的特点。按大脑区域划分,这些测试包括:(1) 海马和内侧皮层的空间导航测试,该测试评估用于参考和偶发记忆的显性 L&M ;(2) 纹状体和相关结构的以自我为中心的导航测试,该测试评估隐性或程序性记忆和路径整合。在现有的测试中,我们认为在这种情况下,有证据支持使用水迷宫,特别是莫里斯水迷宫(MWM)来评估空间记忆,辛辛那提水迷宫(CWM)来评估自我中心/程序记忆。我们回顾了这些测试的证据基础,介绍了它们的使用方法,并解释了优化其灵敏度的程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Tests for learning and memory in rodent regulatory studies

Tests for learning and memory in rodent regulatory studies

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Research in Toxicology
Current Research in Toxicology Environmental Science-Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
82 days
×
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