Luis Heredia1, Margarita Torrente2, María T Colomina3, José L Domingo4. 1. CRAMC (Research Center for Behavior Assessment), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43007 Tarragona, Spain; Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43201 Reus, Spain. Electronic address: luis.heredia@urv.cat. 2. CRAMC (Research Center for Behavior Assessment), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43007 Tarragona, Spain; Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43201 Reus, Spain. Electronic address: margarita.torrente@urv.cat. 3. CRAMC (Research Center for Behavior Assessment), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43007 Tarragona, Spain; Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43201 Reus, Spain. Electronic address: mariateresa.colomina@urv.cat. 4. Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43201 Reus, Spain. Electronic address: joseluis.domingo@urv.cat.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In order to assess anxiety in mammals various tests and species are currently available. These current assays measure changes in anxiety-like behaviors. The open-field and the light/dark are anxiety tests based on the spontaneous behavior of the animals, with C57BL/6J mice being a frequently used strain in behavioral studies. However, the suitability of this strain as a choice in anxiety studies has been questioned. In this study, we performed two pharmacological characterizations of this strain in both the open-field and the light/dark tests. METHODS: We examined the changes in the anxiety-like behaviors of C57BL/6J mice exposed to chlordiazepoxide (CDP), an anxiolytic drug, at doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg, picrotoxine (PTX), an anxiogenic drug, at doses of 0.5 and 1 mg/kg, and methylphenidate (MPH), a psychomotor stimulant drug, at doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg, in a first experiment. In a second experiment, we tested CDP at 2.5 mg/kg, PTX at 2 mg/kg and MPH at 2.5 mg/kg. RESULTS: Results showed an absence of anxiolytic-like effects of CDP in open-field and light/dark tests. Light/dark test was more sensitive to the anxiogenic effects of PTX than the open-field test. Finally, a clear anxiogenic effect of MPH was observed in the two tests. DISCUSSION: Although C57BL/6J mice could not be a sensitive model to study anxiolytic effects in pharmacological or behavioral interventions, it might be a suitable model to test anxiogenic effects. Further studies are necessary to corroborate these results.
INTRODUCTION: In order to assess anxiety in mammals various tests and species are currently available. These current assays measure changes in anxiety-like behaviors. The open-field and the light/dark are anxiety tests based on the spontaneous behavior of the animals, with C57BL/6J mice being a frequently used strain in behavioral studies. However, the suitability of this strain as a choice in anxiety studies has been questioned. In this study, we performed two pharmacological characterizations of this strain in both the open-field and the light/dark tests. METHODS: We examined the changes in the anxiety-like behaviors of C57BL/6J mice exposed to chlordiazepoxide (CDP), an anxiolytic drug, at doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg, picrotoxine (PTX), an anxiogenic drug, at doses of 0.5 and 1 mg/kg, and methylphenidate (MPH), a psychomotor stimulant drug, at doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg, in a first experiment. In a second experiment, we tested CDP at 2.5 mg/kg, PTX at 2 mg/kg and MPH at 2.5 mg/kg. RESULTS: Results showed an absence of anxiolytic-like effects of CDP in open-field and light/dark tests. Light/dark test was more sensitive to the anxiogenic effects of PTX than the open-field test. Finally, a clear anxiogenic effect of MPH was observed in the two tests. DISCUSSION: Although C57BL/6J mice could not be a sensitive model to study anxiolytic effects in pharmacological or behavioral interventions, it might be a suitable model to test anxiogenic effects. Further studies are necessary to corroborate these results.
Authors: Sarah Adams Schoenrock; Daniel Oreper; Nancy Young; Robin Betsch Ervin; Molly A Bogue; William Valdar; Lisa M Tarantino Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2016-09-29
Authors: Sergio D Iñiguez; Francisco J Flores-Ramirez; Lace M Riggs; Jason B Alipio; Israel Garcia-Carachure; Mirella A Hernandez; David O Sanchez; Mary Kay Lobo; Peter A Serrano; Stephen H Braren; Samuel A Castillo Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Justin P Smith; Melissa A Prince; Justin K Achua; James M Robertson; Raymond T Anderson; Patrick J Ronan; Cliff H Summers Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Aikaterini Britzolaki; Claire C Cronin; Patrick R Flaherty; Riely L Rufo; Pothitos M Pitychoutis Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 3.332