4.6 Article

The context preexposure facilitation effect in mice: A dose-response analysis of pretraining scopolamine administration

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 225, 期 1, 页码 290-296

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.07.044

关键词

CPFE; Context; Fear; Scopolamine; Mouse

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [1 R01 AG021925, 1 R01 AG023742]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The context preexposure facilitation effect (CPFE) is an elaboration of contextual fear conditioning and refers to enhanced contextual conditioning resulting from preexposure to the context prior to a separate, brief context-shock episode. A version of the CPFE developed by Rudy and colleagues in rats has demonstrated greater sensitivity to pre-training hippocampal insult relative to standard contextual fear conditioning preparations. Our aim was to adapt the Rudy CPFE procedures to mice. In Experiment 1 we compared performance of young adult male C57BL6/J mice on two versions of the CPFE. One version - not previously used in mice - adapted methods established by Rudy and colleagues, and the other CPFE task replicated procedures previously established in this mouse strain by Gould and colleagues. In Experiment 2 we compared the effects of pre-training intraperitoneal administration of moderate levels of scopolamine or methylscopolamine on contextual conditioning between mice trained using the Rudy CPFE method and a separate group trained using standard contextual fear procedures. Scopolamine is a muscarinic cholinergic receptor antagonist that impairs hippocampal function. Robust freezing to the conditioning context was observed in mice trained using the Rudy CPFE method (Experiment 1), and greater scopolamine-induced impairments in contextual freezing were observed using this CPFE method relative to mice trained using standard contextual fear procedures (Experiment 2). These findings support use of the Rudy CPFE task as a behavioral assay for hippocampal function in mice. (C) 2011 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