4.0 Article

Specific behaviors during auditory fear conditioning and postsynaptic expression of AMPA receptors in the basolateral amygdala predict interindividual differences in fear generalization in male rats

期刊

LEARNING & MEMORY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 74-84

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/lm.053612.122

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Auditory fear conditioning in rats is a widely used method to study learning, memory, and emotional responding. This study explores the factors that could explain interindividual variability in fear expression, and identifies candidate predictors of fear generalization that may inform our understanding of anxiety-related disorders.
Auditory fear conditioning in rats is a widely used method to study learning, memory, and emotional responding. Despite procedural standardizations and optimizations, there is substantial interindividual variability in fear expression during test, notably in terms of fear expressed toward the testing context alone. To better understand which factors could explain this variation between subjects, we here explored whether behavior during training and expression of AMPA receptors (AMPARs) after long-term memory formation in the amygdala could predict freezing during test. We studied outbred male rats and found strong variation in fear generalization to a different context. Hierarchical clustering of these data identified two distinct groups of subjects that independently correlated with a specific pattern of behaviors expressed during initial training (i.e., rearing and freezing). The extent of fear generalization correlated positively with postsynaptic expression of GluA1-containing AMPA receptors in the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala. Our data thus identify candidate behavioral and molecular predictors of fear generalization that may inform our understanding of some anxiety-related disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that are characterized by overgeneralized fear.

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

4.0
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