4.5 Article

Marked inbred mouse strain difference in the expression of quinpirole induced compulsive like behavior based on behavioral pattern analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 657-663

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2012.01.003

关键词

Obsessive compulsive behavior; Animal model; T-pattern analysis; Quinpirole

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic and complex psychiatric disorder with a lifetime prevalence of 2-3%. Recent work has shown that OCD rituals were not only characterized by a high rate of repetition but also by an increased behavioral repertoire due to additional non-functional unique acts. These two behavioral characteristics may provide an ethological basis for studying compulsive behavior in an animal model of OCD. Here, quinpirole induced behavior (so far only investigated in rats) has been studied in A/J and C578L/6J mice by using behavioral pattern analysis. The aim of this study is to investigate whether genetic background is mediating this behavior. Results showed that open field motor activity levels of saline treated C57BL/6J mice was significantly higher compared to A/J treated saline mice. Long-term quinpirole treatment increased open field motor activity levels in A/J, but not in C57BL/6J. Quinpirole treatment induced a strain dependent difference in behavioral repertoire. There was a dose dependent increase in the number of different behavioral patterns in A/J, whereas, in C57BL/6J there was a dose dependent decrease. This data suggest that genetic background is important in expressing quinpirole induced compulsive like behavior. Following quinpirole treatment, A/J mice express a greater behavioral repertoire with a high rate of repetition. This phenotype resembles that of OCD rituals in patients and indicates that this strain is very interesting to further validate for studying neurobiological mechanisms of compulsive behavior. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. 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

4.5
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