4.5 Article

Sexually Dimorphic Risk Mitigation Strategies in Rats

Journal

ENEURO
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0288-16.2017

Keywords

anxiety; decision-making; fear; foraging behavior; sex differences

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health [MH-099073]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The scientific understanding of fear and anxiety-in both normal and pathological forms-is presently limited by a predominance of studies that use male animals and Pavlovian fear conditioning-centered paradigms that restrict and assess specific behaviors (e.g., freezing) over brief sampling periods and overlook the broader contributions of the spatiotemporal context to an animal's behavioral responses to threats. Here, we use a risky closed economy system, in which the need to acquire food and water and the need to avoid threats are simultaneously integrated into the lives of rats, to examine sex differences in mitigating threat risk while foraging. Rats lived for an extended period (similar to 2 months) in enlarged chambers that consisted of a safe, bedded nest and a risky foraging area where footshocks could be delivered unpredictably. We observed that male and female rats used different strategies for responding to the threat of footshock. Whereas male rats increased the size of meals consumed to reduce the overall time spent foraging, female rats sacrificed their metabolic needs in order to avoid shocks. Ovarian hormone fluctuations were shown to exert slight but reliable rhythmic effects on risky decision-making in gonadally intact female rats. However, this did not produce significant differences in approach-avoidance trade-offs between ovariectomized and intact female groups, suggesting that male-female sex differences are not due to the activational effects of gonadal hormones but, rather, are likely to be organized during early development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available