4.6 Article

Validation of behavioral phenotypes in the BACHD rat model

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 393, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112783

关键词

BACHD rats; Behavioral phenotyping; Behavioral phenotype validation

资金

  1. Marie Curie Industry Academia Partnership and Pathways (IAPP) of the European Commission 7th Framework Program 'Switch HD' (FP7-PEOPLE-2012) [324495]
  2. Marie Curie Initial Network (IN) of the European Commission 7th Framework Program 'PhenoRat' (FP7/2012) [317259]
  3. European Union [643417]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Huntington disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder caused by a polyglutamine expansion in the HTT gene. Various HD animal models have been generated to mimic the motor, cognitive and neuropsychiatric disturbances that affect HD patients. Reproducing disease phenotypes within these models is essential to identify reliable readouts for therapy studies. We validated behavioral phenotypes shown earlier by other research groups in the BACHD rat model, using both previously applied and novel tests for motor, cognitive and anxietylike behaviors. We first confirmed known BACHD rats' phenotypes in rotarod, open field (OF) and elevated plus maze (EPM) tests. We then assessed the reproducibility of key phenotypes in the model using new tests: cliff hanging, passive avoidance (PA), Morris water maze (MWM), light dark box and light spot tests. We confirmed impaired motor coordination in the rotarod WA and reduced activity in the OF. In line with earlier results in BACHD rats using different tests, we showed impaired reversal learning in MWM and decreased anxiety-like behavior with the light spot WA supporting the validity of BACHD rats as a model of HD. Results in the EPM, light dark box, cliff hanging and PA tests did not confirm earlier findings. This may depend on phenotype inconsistencies or rather be related to differences in environmental variables, WA typology, experimental settings, animal age and chosen behavioral parameters.

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