4.3 Article

Strain- and context-dependent behavioural responses of acute alarm substance exposure in zebrafish

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.014

关键词

Alarm substance; Zebrafish; Strains; Behaviour; Fear

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Tecnologia (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  4. CNPq
  5. FAPERGS
  6. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the behavioural responses of wild type (WT) and leopard (leo) zebrafish elicited by alarm substances of conspecifics at three contexts: during the exposure period (Experiment 1); after exposure, in habituation to novelty (Experiment 2); or after exposure, in the light-dark preference test (Experiment 3), and analyse their influence on pigment response. During the exposure, leo showed decreased vertical drifts, increased number and duration of erratic movements, while WT had increased erratic movements and latency to enter the top. In the novel tank, we observed that angular velocity decreased in WT exposed to alarm substance, which also presented increased fear responses. Contrastingly, leo increased the number of entries and time in top, indicating differences in habituation profile. Alarm substance increased the number of erratic movements in the light-dark test, but elicited different responses between strains in scototaxis, latency to enter the dark compartment and risk assessment episodes. Moreover, the body colour of zebrafish did not change after alarm substance exposure. Principal component analyses suggest that burst swimming, anxiety-like behaviours, and locomotion/exploration were the components that most accounted for total variances of Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. We conclude that chemical cue from conspecifics triggers strain- and context-dependent responses. (c) 2015 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

4.3
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