Literature DB >> 10340519

Pharmacologic and behavioral responses of inbred C57BL/6J and strain 129/SvJ mouse lines.

G E Homanics1, J J Quinlan, L L Firestone.   

Abstract

Gene-targeting technology is creating an explosion in the number of animals available with single gene mutations that affect the function of the central nervous system. Most gene-targeted mice are produced on a mixed genetic background of C57BL/6J and substrains of Strain 129. Understanding the behavioral characteristics and responses to various drugs of these parental strains is vital to interpreting data from gene-targeted mice. We directly compared C57BL/6J and Strain 129/SvJ mouse lines on several behavioral paradigms and in response to several hypnotic and anesthetic drugs. Compared to Strain 129/SvJ mice, C57BL/6J animals are more sensitive to the hypnotic effects of midazolam, zolpidem, and propofol, less sensitive to etomidate and ethanol, and do not differ in sensitivity to Ro15-4513 or pentobarbital. These strains do not differ in their sensitivity to the motor ataxic effects of the volatile anesthetics enflurane or halothane. However, Strain 129/SvJs are more sensitive to the immobilizing effects of halothane but not enflurane. Motor coordination differs initially, but with repeated testing strain differences are no longer apparent. Strain 129/SvJ mice are more anxious on the elevated plus maze and open-field activity assays. Thus, these mouse strains harbor polymorphisms that influence some, but not all, traits of interest to behavioral neuroscientists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10340519     DOI: 10.1016/s0091-3057(98)00232-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav        ISSN: 0091-3057            Impact factor:   3.533


  45 in total

1.  The mapping of quantitative trait loci underlying strain differences in locomotor activity between 129S6 and C57BL/6J mice.

Authors:  Michele A Kelly; Malcolm J Low; Tamara J Phillips; Edward K Wakeland; Masashi Yanagisawa
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.957

2.  Genetic disruption of Met signaling impairs GABAergic striatal development and cognition.

Authors:  G J Martins; M Shahrokh; E M Powell
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 3.590

Review 3.  Phenotypic studies on dopamine receptor subtype and associated signal transduction mutants: insights and challenges from 10 years at the psychopharmacology-molecular biology interface.

Authors:  John L Waddington; Colm O'Tuathaigh; Gerard O'Sullivan; Katsunori Tomiyama; Noriaki Koshikawa; David T Croke
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2005-09-29       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Normal acute behavioral responses to moderate/high dose ethanol in GABAA receptor alpha 4 subunit knockout mice.

Authors:  Dev Chandra; David F Werner; Jing Liang; Asha Suryanarayanan; Neil L Harrison; Igor Spigelman; Richard W Olsen; Gregg E Homanics
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2007-12-12       Impact factor: 3.455

5.  Cocaine self-administration under fixed and progressive ratio schedules of reinforcement: comparison of C57BL/6J, 129X1/SvJ, and 129S6/SvEvTac inbred mice.

Authors:  Morgane Thomsen; S Barak Caine
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 6.  The behavioral pharmacology of zolpidem: evidence for the functional significance of α1-containing GABA(A) receptors.

Authors:  Amanda C Fitzgerald; Brittany T Wright; Scott A Heldt
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 4.530

7.  Assessment of the Effects of 6 Standard Rodent Diets on Binge-Like and Voluntary Ethanol Consumption in Male C57BL/6J Mice.

Authors:  Simon Alex Marshall; Jennifer A Rinker; Langston K Harrison; Craig A Fletcher; Tina M Herfel; Todd E Thiele
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 3.455

8.  Strained in Planning Your Mouse Background? Using the HPA Stress Axis as a Biological Readout for Backcrossing Strategies.

Authors:  Jennifer C Chan; Amanda B Houghton; Tracy L Bale
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 7.853

9.  Perturbation of chemokine networks by gene deletion alters the reinforcing actions of ethanol.

Authors:  Yuri A Blednov; Susan E Bergeson; Danielle Walker; Vania M M Ferreira; William A Kuziel; R Adron Harris
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2005-08-18       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Marble burying reflects a repetitive and perseverative behavior more than novelty-induced anxiety.

Authors:  Alexia Thomas; April Burant; Nghiem Bui; Deanna Graham; Lisa A Yuva-Paylor; Richard Paylor
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 4.530

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.