自然和后天培养:在基因或环境定义的群体中,比较经典和改良的焦虑样和社会行为分析中的小鼠行为。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Janet Ronquillo, Michael T. Nguyen, Linnea Y. Rothi, Trung-Dan Bui-Tu, Jocelyn Yang, Lindsay R. Halladay
{"title":"自然和后天培养:在基因或环境定义的群体中,比较经典和改良的焦虑样和社会行为分析中的小鼠行为。","authors":"Janet Ronquillo,&nbsp;Michael T. Nguyen,&nbsp;Linnea Y. Rothi,&nbsp;Trung-Dan Bui-Tu,&nbsp;Jocelyn Yang,&nbsp;Lindsay R. Halladay","doi":"10.1111/gbb.12869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Widely used rodent anxiety assays like the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT) are conflated with rodents' natural preference for dark over light environments or protected over open spaces. The EPM and OFT have been used for decades but are often criticized by behavioral scientists. Years ago, two revised anxiety assays were designed to improve upon the “classic” tests by excluding the possibility to avoid or escape aversion. The 3-D radial arm maze (3DR) and the 3-D open field test (3Doft) utilize continual motivational conflict to better model anxiety; each consist of an open space connected to ambiguous paths toward uncertain escape. Despite their utility, the revised assays have not caught on. This could be because no study yet has directly compared classic and revised assays in the same animals. To remedy this, we contrasted behavior from a battery of assays (EPM, OFT, 3DR, 3Doft and a sociability test) in mice defined genetically by isogenic strain, or environmentally by postnatal experience. One major motivation for this work is to inform future studies by offering a transparent look at individual outcomes on these assays, as there is no one-size-fits-all test to assess rodent anxiety-like behavior. Findings suggest that classic assays may sufficiently characterize differences across genetically defined groups, but the revised 3DR may be advantageous for investigating more nuanced behavioral differences such as those stemming from environmental factors. Finally, exposure to multiple assays significantly affected sociability, highlighting concerns for designing and interpreting batteries of rodent behavioral tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gbb.12869","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nature and nurture: Comparing mouse behavior in classic versus revised anxiety-like and social behavioral assays in genetically or environmentally defined groups\",\"authors\":\"Janet Ronquillo,&nbsp;Michael T. Nguyen,&nbsp;Linnea Y. Rothi,&nbsp;Trung-Dan Bui-Tu,&nbsp;Jocelyn Yang,&nbsp;Lindsay R. Halladay\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gbb.12869\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Widely used rodent anxiety assays like the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT) are conflated with rodents' natural preference for dark over light environments or protected over open spaces. The EPM and OFT have been used for decades but are often criticized by behavioral scientists. Years ago, two revised anxiety assays were designed to improve upon the “classic” tests by excluding the possibility to avoid or escape aversion. The 3-D radial arm maze (3DR) and the 3-D open field test (3Doft) utilize continual motivational conflict to better model anxiety; each consist of an open space connected to ambiguous paths toward uncertain escape. Despite their utility, the revised assays have not caught on. This could be because no study yet has directly compared classic and revised assays in the same animals. To remedy this, we contrasted behavior from a battery of assays (EPM, OFT, 3DR, 3Doft and a sociability test) in mice defined genetically by isogenic strain, or environmentally by postnatal experience. One major motivation for this work is to inform future studies by offering a transparent look at individual outcomes on these assays, as there is no one-size-fits-all test to assess rodent anxiety-like behavior. Findings suggest that classic assays may sufficiently characterize differences across genetically defined groups, but the revised 3DR may be advantageous for investigating more nuanced behavioral differences such as those stemming from environmental factors. Finally, exposure to multiple assays significantly affected sociability, highlighting concerns for designing and interpreting batteries of rodent behavioral tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gbb.12869\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gbb.12869\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gbb.12869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

广泛使用的啮齿类动物焦虑测试,如高架+迷宫(EPM)和开放式场地测试(OFT),与啮齿类动物对黑暗而非光明环境的自然偏好或对开放空间的保护混为一谈。EPM和OFT已经使用了几十年,但经常受到行为科学家的批评。几年前,两项修订后的焦虑测试旨在通过排除避免或逃避厌恶的可能性来改进“经典”测试。三维桡臂迷宫(3DR)和三维开阔场地测试(3Doft)利用持续的动机冲突来更好地模拟焦虑;每个都由一个开放的空间组成,连接着通往不确定逃生的模糊路径。尽管它们很有用,但修订后的测定法并没有流行起来。这可能是因为还没有研究直接比较同一动物的经典和修订测定法。为了解决这一问题,我们对比了一系列测试(EPM、OFT、3DR、3Doft和社交能力测试)中的小鼠行为,这些测试是由等基因菌株遗传定义的,或者是由出生后的经验环境定义的。这项工作的一个主要动机是通过透明地观察这些测定的个体结果来为未来的研究提供信息,因为没有一种一刀切的测试来评估啮齿动物的焦虑样行为。研究结果表明,经典的分析方法可以充分表征基因定义的群体之间的差异,但修订后的3DR可能有利于研究更细微的行为差异,例如源于环境因素的行为差异。最后,暴露于多种检测显著影响了社交能力,这突出了设计和解释啮齿动物行为测试组的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Nature and nurture: Comparing mouse behavior in classic versus revised anxiety-like and social behavioral assays in genetically or environmentally defined groups

Nature and nurture: Comparing mouse behavior in classic versus revised anxiety-like and social behavioral assays in genetically or environmentally defined groups

Nature and nurture: Comparing mouse behavior in classic versus revised anxiety-like and social behavioral assays in genetically or environmentally defined groups

Widely used rodent anxiety assays like the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT) are conflated with rodents' natural preference for dark over light environments or protected over open spaces. The EPM and OFT have been used for decades but are often criticized by behavioral scientists. Years ago, two revised anxiety assays were designed to improve upon the “classic” tests by excluding the possibility to avoid or escape aversion. The 3-D radial arm maze (3DR) and the 3-D open field test (3Doft) utilize continual motivational conflict to better model anxiety; each consist of an open space connected to ambiguous paths toward uncertain escape. Despite their utility, the revised assays have not caught on. This could be because no study yet has directly compared classic and revised assays in the same animals. To remedy this, we contrasted behavior from a battery of assays (EPM, OFT, 3DR, 3Doft and a sociability test) in mice defined genetically by isogenic strain, or environmentally by postnatal experience. One major motivation for this work is to inform future studies by offering a transparent look at individual outcomes on these assays, as there is no one-size-fits-all test to assess rodent anxiety-like behavior. Findings suggest that classic assays may sufficiently characterize differences across genetically defined groups, but the revised 3DR may be advantageous for investigating more nuanced behavioral differences such as those stemming from environmental factors. Finally, exposure to multiple assays significantly affected sociability, highlighting concerns for designing and interpreting batteries of rodent behavioral tests.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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