4.6 Article

Dissociation of hypertension and fixed interval responding in two separate strains of genetically hypertensive rat

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 152, 期 2, 页码 393-401

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2003.10.023

关键词

SHR; GH; reward; fixed-interval schedule; hypertension; ADHD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The behaviour of spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) may model attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For example, SHR are hyperactive in an open field and show high terminal rates of responding on certain fixed-interval schedules. Open field behaviour has been dissociated from the accompanying spontaneous hypertension but fixed interval responding has not. We compared the fixed interval responding of two unrelated strains of genetically hypertensive rat, the SHR (it = 6) and the New Zealand genetically hypertensive at (GH, n = 5), with their normotensive control strains, the Wistar Kyoto (WKY, n = 6) and Wistar (n = 5), respectively. Both hypertensive rat strains showed increased terminal lever-pressing rates on a multiple fixed-interval schedule (FI-EXT) compared to controls. In order to investigate the association of hypertension and the behavioural characteristics in question, an F-2 hybrid strain was obtained by cross-breeding GH and Wistar rats. When these F-2 hybrids (n = 33) were tested on the FI-EXT schedule, terminal lever-pressing rate was not correlated with blood pressure. The independent segregation of these phenotypical characteristics in the hybrids suggests independent genetic control. By contrast, other behavioural characteristics, including high lever-pressing rates during the extinction component and a tendency to emit responses in bursts, did cosegregate with terminal lever-pressing rates. Taken together, these findings suggest that the genetic loci for high blood pressure and responding on the FI-EXT schedule in these two unrelated rat strains are close but distinct. (C) 2003 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