4.6 Article

Male but not female Wistar rats show increased anxiety-like behaviour in response to bright light in the defensive withdrawal test

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 202, 期 2, 页码 303-307

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.04.019

关键词

Emotionality; Sex difference; Illumination; Habituation; Anxiety test

资金

  1. Swedish Society for Medical Research
  2. Fredrik och Ingrid Thurings stiftelse
  3. Lars Hiertas Minne and Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The defensive withdrawal test (DWT) is used to model anxiety-like behaviour in rats. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an aversive stimulus, bright light, affects the behaviour in this test. Additionally, the effect of habituation to the apparatus was studied. Both male and female Wistar rats were used to study whether sex differences exist in the DWT, as reported for other tests of anxiety. On day I half of the rats were tested under low light and half under bright light. Two to seven days after trial one the same rats were repeatedly tested under the same light condition for five consecutive days. The male rats showed a higher degree of anxiety-like behaviour when tested under bright light than under low light. In contrast, the behaviour of the female rats was not affected by changes in illumination. Male rats also exhibited elevated anxiety-like behaviour compared to female rats under bright light, whereas under low light conditions no sex difference was seen. Males in low light habituated much faster than males tested under bright light, whereas in females there was little difference in habituation between low and bright light. In summary, we found that bright light is aversive for male but not female Wistar rats in the DWT. Whether this is due to sex differences in light sensitivity or if females respond with a different behavioural strategy in response to bright light, which could not be detected in the DWT, remains to be elucidated. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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