4.7 Article

Anxiogenic treatments do not increase fear-potentiated startle in mice

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 33-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.10.006

关键词

anxiety; anxiogenic; conditioned fear; fear-potentiated startle; mice; predictive validity

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH042228, R37MH042228] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA002925] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [DA 02925] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 42228] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In rodents, the fear-potentiated startle paradigm (FPS; exaggerated startle as a measure of the conditioned fear response to cues associated with footshock) has demonstrated predictive validity for anxiolytic drugs. The predictive validity of the model for anxiogenic drugs, however, remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the bi-directionality of the FPS model for anxiety-modulating compounds in mice. Methods: The clinical anxiogenics FG-7142 (1-20 mg/kg), yohimbine (.1-10 mg/kg), and m-Chlorophenylpiperazine (mCPP; .3-3 mg/kg), and the putative anxiogenics atipamezole (.3-3 mg/kg) and corticotropin-releasing factor (h/r-CRF; .03-1 mug) were tested in DBA/1J mice trained for FPS. Results: Contrary to predictions, FG-7142 (10 and 20 mg/kg) and yohimbine (10 mg/kg) reduced FPS in mice without affecting baseline startle. Atipamezole (3 mg/kg), mCPP (3 mg/kg), and h/r-CRF (.3, 1 mug) did not affect FPS, but increased startle independently from the presence of the cue. FG-7142 and h/r-CRF bad similar effects in 129SvEv mice. Conclusions: Murine FPS is not bi-directionally predictive for anxiety-modulating compounds, although murine baseline startle may have some utility as a bi-directional model of anxiety. These data corroborate the recent hypothesis that systems mediating FPS are independent from systems mediating increased startle from unconditioned and putatively anxiogenic stimuli.

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

4.7
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