4.6 Article

Experimental parameters affecting the Morris water maze performance of a mouse model of Down syndrome

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 154, 期 1, 页码 1-17

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2004.01.012

关键词

Down syndrome; Ts65Dn mice; aneuploidy; trisomy 21; trisomy 16; mouse model; Morris water maze

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA034196] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD37113, HD24605, HD37424] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Ts65Dn mouse is the most studied and genetically the most complete animal model of Down syndrome (DS) available. These mice display many DS-like features, including performance deficits in different behavioral tasks, motor dysfunction, and age-dependent loss of cholinergic markers in the basal forebrain. At present, the only robust data demonstrating a behavioral deficit potentially associated with learning and memory in Ts65Dn mice less than 6 months old have come from studies that used some variation of the Morris water maze task. However, the specific features of the water maze deficits seen in these animals are still poorly defined. This study is an initial attempt to bridge this knowledge gap. We investigated three major factors potentially influencing the performance of Ts65Dn mice in the water maze: (1) order in which the test is executed; (2) age of the animals; and (3) levels of aversiveness associated with the test. Measurements of plasma corticosterone levels end core body temperature after swimming were also carried out in additional subsets of mice. Overall, we found that the behavioral phenotype of Ts65Dn mice was milder than previously described in the literature. Additionally, Ts65Dn mice were significantly more responsive to potential stressors and more prone to swim-induced hypothermia than euploid control animals. More studies are needed to tease out further the potential effects of confounding factors on the performance of Ts65Dn mice. (C) 2004 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

4.6
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