William M Howe1, Patrick L Tierney2, Damon A Young2, Charlotte Oomen3, Rouba Kozak2. 1. Neuroscience Research Unit, Pfizer Inc., 610 Main Street, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. wmhowe@gmail.com. 2. Neuroscience Research Unit, Pfizer Inc., 610 Main Street, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. 3. Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Gestational day 17 methylazoxymethanol (MAM) treatment has been shown to reproduce, in rodents, some of the alterations in cortical and mesolimbic circuitries thought to contribute to schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: We characterized the behavior of MAM animals in tasks dependent on these circuitries to see what behavioral aspects of schizophrenia the model captures. We then characterized the integrity of mesolimbic dopamine neurotransmission in a subset of animals used in the behavioral experiments. METHODS: MAM animals' capacity for working memory, attention, and resilience to distraction was tested with two different paradigms. Cue-reward learning and motivation were assayed with Pavlovian conditioned approach. Measurements of electrically stimulated phasic and tonic DA release in the nucleus accumbens with fast-scan cyclic voltammetry were obtained from the same animals used in the Pavlovian task. RESULTS: MAM animals' basic attentional capacities were intact. MAM animals took longer to acquire the working memory task, but once learned, performed at the same level as shams. MAM animals were also slower to develop a Pavlovian conditioned response, but otherwise no different from controls. These same animals showed alterations in terminal DA release that were unmasked by an amphetamine challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The predominant behavioral-cognitive feature of the MAM model is a learning impairment that is evident in acquisition of executive function tasks as well as basic Pavlovian associations. MAM animals also have dysregulated terminal DA release, and this may contribute to observed behavioral differences. The MAM model captures some functional impairments of schizophrenia, particularly those related to acquisition of goal-directed behavior.
RATIONALE: Gestational day 17 methylazoxymethanol (MAM) treatment has been shown to reproduce, in rodents, some of the alterations in cortical and mesolimbic circuitries thought to contribute to schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: We characterized the behavior of MAM animals in tasks dependent on these circuitries to see what behavioral aspects of schizophrenia the model captures. We then characterized the integrity of mesolimbic dopamine neurotransmission in a subset of animals used in the behavioral experiments. METHODS:MAM animals' capacity for working memory, attention, and resilience to distraction was tested with two different paradigms. Cue-reward learning and motivation were assayed with Pavlovian conditioned approach. Measurements of electrically stimulated phasic and tonic DA release in the nucleus accumbens with fast-scan cyclic voltammetry were obtained from the same animals used in the Pavlovian task. RESULTS:MAM animals' basic attentional capacities were intact. MAM animals took longer to acquire the working memory task, but once learned, performed at the same level as shams. MAM animals were also slower to develop a Pavlovian conditioned response, but otherwise no different from controls. These same animals showed alterations in terminal DA release that were unmasked by an amphetamine challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The predominant behavioral-cognitive feature of the MAM model is a learning impairment that is evident in acquisition of executive function tasks as well as basic Pavlovian associations. MAM animals also have dysregulated terminal DA release, and this may contribute to observed behavioral differences. The MAM model captures some functional impairments of schizophrenia, particularly those related to acquisition of goal-directed behavior.
Authors: Robert E Featherstone; Zoe Rizos; José N Nobrega; Shitij Kapur; Paul J Fletcher Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: William M Howe; Anne S Berry; Jennifer Francois; Gary Gilmour; Joshua M Carp; Mark Tricklebank; Cindy Lustig; Martin Sarter Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Benjamin T Saunders; Elizabeth G O'Donnell; Elyse L Aurbach; Terry E Robinson Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Garret D Stuber; Mitchell F Roitman; Paul E M Phillips; Regina M Carelli; R Mark Wightman Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Jeremy J Clark; Stefan G Sandberg; Matthew J Wanat; Jerylin O Gan; Eric A Horne; Andrew S Hart; Christina A Akers; Jones G Parker; Ingo Willuhn; Vicente Martinez; Scott B Evans; Nephi Stella; Paul E M Phillips Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2009-12-27 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: M Hvoslef-Eide; A C Mar; S R O Nilsson; J Alsiö; C J Heath; L M Saksida; T W Robbins; T J Bussey Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Vladimir P Grinevich; Amir N Zakirov; Uliana V Berseneva; Elena V Gerasimova; Raul R Gainetdinov; Evgeny A Budygin Journal: Cells Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 7.666
Authors: Adam C Mar; Simon R O Nilsson; Begoña Gamallo-Lana; Ming Lei; Theda Dourado; Johan Alsiö; Lisa M Saksida; Timothy J Bussey; Trevor W Robbins Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 4.530