4.4 Article

Trait and state anxiety in animal models: Is there correlation?

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 450, 期 3, 页码 266-269

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.11.037

关键词

Free-exploratory paradigm; Elevated plus-maze; Rats

资金

  1. Institucional de Bolsas de Iniciacao Cientifica (PIBIC/CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is believed that subjects with high trait anxiety levels tend to present state anxiety reactions with greater intensity than individuals with low trait anxiety levels. In order to verify if this premise is valid for animal models of anxiety, the present work investigated the possible correlation between two behavioral tests: the elevated plus-maze, a classic model of state-anxiety, and the free-exploratory paradigm, which has been proposed as a model of trait anxiety. The behavior of 46 drug-naive, adult, Wistar, male rats was measured in these two models on two occasions, 1 week apart. Subsequently, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the parameters percentage of time in the novel side (%TNS; free-exploratory paradigm). percentage of time in the open arms (%TOA; elevated plus-maze) and percentage of entries into the open arms (%EOA: elevated plus-maze). These parameters were also used to classify the animals into groups presenting high. medium or low levels of anxiety in both tests, so that the concordance between the models could be evaluated through the kappa test. The analysis resulted in low ICC (%TNS x %TOA: -0.127; %TNS x %EOA: 0.040) and low kappa index (%TNS x %TOA: -0.017; %TNS x %ECA: -0.044), suggesting a poor correspondence between the free-exploratory paradigm and the elevated plus-maze. In conclusion, the data presented here indicate that the premise of correlation between trait and state anxiety is not necessarily true for animal models of anxiety and, therefore. care must be exercised when using state anxiety models in order to determine animals' anxiety profile. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据