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.
复制标题
先天与后天：在遗传或环境定义的群体中，比较经典与修订的焦虑样和社会行为测定中的小鼠行为。
DOI：
10.1101/2023.06.16.545212
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Halladay,LindsayR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ronquillo,Janet;Nguyen,MichaelT;Rothi,Linnea;Bui-Tu,Trung-Dan;Yang,Jocelyn;Halladay,LindsayR
广泛使用的啮齿类动物焦虑测定法，如高架十字迷宫（elevated plus maze）和旷场试验（open field test），与啮齿类动物对黑暗环境或开放空间的自然偏好相结合。OFT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，设计了两种经过修订的焦虑测试，通过排除避免或逃避厌恶的可能性来改进“经典”测试。3-D径向臂迷宫（3DR）和3-D旷场测试（3Doft）利用持续的动机冲突来更好地模拟焦虑;每个测试都由一个开放空间组成，该空间连接到通往不确定逃避的模糊路径。尽管有其实用性，但修订后的检测方法并没有流行起来，这可能是因为还没有研究直接比较相同动物的经典和修订后的检测方法。为了纠正这一点，我们对比了一系列试验（ESTA，OFT，3DR，3Doft和社交测试）中的行为，这些试验在遗传上由等基因品系定义，或在环境上由出生后的经验定义。这项工作的一个主要动机是通过提供对这些测定的个体结果的透明观察来告知未来的研究，因为没有一种通用的测试来评估啮齿动物的焦虑样行为。研究结果表明，经典的检测方法可以充分表征遗传定义的群体之间的差异，但修订后的3DR可能有利于调查更细微的行为差异，如源于环境因素。最后，暴露于多种测试显着影响了社交能力，凸显了对设计和解释啮齿动物行为测试组合的担忧。
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.