4.3 Article

Genetic differences in response to novelty and spatial memory using a two-trial recognition task in mice

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MEMORY
卷 73, 期 1, 页码 31-48

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/nlme.1999.3919

关键词

spatial recognition; exploratory behavior; Y-maze; strain differences; mouse

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [P50MH047680] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH47680] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A two-trial memory task, based on a free-choice exploration paradigm in Y-maze, was previously developed to study recognition processes in Sprague-Dawley rats. Because this paradigm avoids the use of electric shock or deprivation that may have nonspecific effects and does not require learning of a rule, it may be particularly useful for studying memory in mice. Four inbred strains (Balb/cByJ, DBA/2J, C57BL/6J, and SJL/J), an Fl hybrid (C57BL/b x SJL/J), and one outbred strain (CD1) were used to validate this task in mice and to characterize a strain distribution in response to novelty and working memory. Exploration was measured with a short (2 min) intertrial interval (ITI) between acquisition and retrieval, while memory was examined with longer intervals (30 min, 1 h, and 2 h). A study of the time course of the response to novelty revealed varying degrees of preference and/or habituation to novelty among the different strains, with CD1 exhibiting a very high response to novelty and others showing lower (C57 x SJL hybrids) to complete absence (SJL) of exploration of novelty. Memory span, assessed with increasing ITIs, varied widely among strains from 30 min (C57 x SJL hybrids) to at least 2 h (C57 and BALE). Such demonstrated sensitivity to a wide range of behavioral phenotypes supports the use of this spatial memory task as an effective tool for the study of genetic influences on the response to novelty and recognition processes in mice. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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

4.3
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