4.6 Article

Age-associated decline in septum neuronal activation during spatial learning in homing pigeons (Columba livia)

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 397, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112948

关键词

Avian; Spatial cognition; Septum; Nucleus of the diagonal band; Immediate early gene; Choline acetyltransferase

资金

  1. BGSU Department of Psychology
  2. National Science Foundation [IOS-1457304]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significantly reduced septum activation during spatial learning in older pigeons, but no significant change in NDB activation. Additionally, older pigeons had substantially fewer ChAT-expressing cells in the septum compared to younger pigeons, supporting the hypothesis that reduced septum activation contributes to age-related spatial cognitive impairment in pigeons.
The relationship between hippocampal aging and spatial-cognitive decline in birds has recently been investigated. However, like its mammalian counterpart, the avian hippocampus does not work in isolation and its relationship to the septum is of particular interest. The current study aimed to investigate the effects of age on septum (medial and lateral) and associated nucleus of the diagonal band (NDB) neuronal activation (as indicated by c-Fos expression) during learning of a spatial, delayed non-match-to-sample task conducted in a modified radial arm maze. The results indicated significantly reduced septum, but not NDB, activation during spatial learning in older pigeons. We also preliminarily investigated the effect of age on the number of cholinergic septum and NDB neurons (as indicated by expression of choline acetyltransferase; ChAT). Although underpowered to reveal a statistical effect, the data suggest that older pigeons have substantially fewer ChAT-expressing cells in the septum compared to younger pigeons. The data support the hypothesis that reduced activation of the septum contributes to the age-related, spatial cognitive impairment in pigeons.

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