Various Test To Assess the Behaviour and Learning Skills in Rodent
1Rashmi Tripathi,2Geetika mehta,3Garima Tripathi and 4Monika Sachdeva
1,2,3,4
Raj Kumar goel institute of technology, pharmacy, Delhi - Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, Pin:201003
Abstract
A huge assortment of rat conduct tests are presently being utilized to assess indications like tangible engine work, social collaborations, nervousness like and burdensome like practices, substance reliance, and different types of psychological capacity. Most conduct tests have an innate intricacy, and their utilization requires thought of numerous viewpoints like the wellspring of inspiration in the test, the cooperation between the experimenter and the creature, the wellspring of fluctuation, the assignment to be settled. The tangible modulus needed by the creature. As the expense and exertion required work. Although most behavioural tests have been acted in mice, mice are quickly turning into the favored rat of study in numerous research centers in light of the fact that their hereditary qualities are notable, their genomes have been sequenced, and they have been hereditarily controlled. can go. Until this point, a few distinct strategies have been utilized to create a conduct aggregate for the examination.The plan and advancement of new social tests is, hence, a continuous undertaking and more than 100 preliminaries portrayed in contemporary writing are presently well.
Keywords: Rodent Behaviour, GNG Test, Mice, Maze Test, Touch Screen Test.
Introduction
It is presently surely known that the utilization of creature models is a fundamental part in our mission to comprehend the brainstem of discernment. Furthermore, such models are important.[1]. It is workable for specialists to have the option to test expected remedial specialists in an immediate and convenient way that is unimaginable in human subjects. Moreover, such models expect specialists to test likely restorative specialists in an immediate and convenient way that is absurd in human subjects..[2]. IIn expansion, we are encountering an upset in the refinement of transgenic and take out animals models that set out open doors for psychological testing and restorative screening that was as of not long ago incredible.[3]. To
accomplish effective interpretation of concentrates from animal to people, the intellectual capacities we use with our rodents should be as near people as could really be expected.[4]. Human subjects are inspected utilizing PC robotized strategies. An especially incredible methodology is the "touchscreen" test technique, in which an immediate reaction to upgrades happens on a PC screen [5]. The benefits of this technique are numerous and incorporate the capacity to introduce a pertinent battery between various upgrades and reactions, and smooth execution because of a battery of various psychological.[6]. Tests in which parameters such as stimulus, response, and response correspond to task and conditions. In the search of cognitive testing method for the rodents the researchers have successfully tested the the touch screen method for the rodents[7]. This method allows the rodents to present computer graphic stimuli on the computer through nose poke directly to the stimuli. The infrared stimuli touchscreen that is surrounded to screen help to detect the nose-poke response of the rodents.[8] Notwithstanding the advantages of simple interpretation among human and creature tests, the work offers a few different advantages, including diminished engine interest, simplicity of organization, and exactness of assignment boundaries.
The proposed strategy has been tried in different pharmacological, conduct and wound investigations. We generally consider the Charles Darwin as the first person who firstly studied on the behavioral research[9]. As the early behavioral testing were extensively used to get the better understanding about Central Nerve System, to find the treatment of disease related to it[10]. Ivan Pavlov’s experimental work was the earliest studies that was conducted on the animal behaviour, the particularly described about the conditional reflexes of the Dogs that he began on the 19th century[11].
Notwithstanding the advantages of simple interpretation among human and creature tests, the work offers a few different advantages, including diminished engine interest, simplicity of organization, and exactness of assignment boundaries. The proposed strategy has been tried in different pharmacological, conduct and wound investigations.[11]. But the their experimental studies were quite difficult because they studied the animal behaviour in their natural habitat. This problem was firstly identified when the behavioral testing method was conducted in laboratory in the start of the 20th century[12]. Form the past many animal were chosen for behavioral testing but all of them the rodents were widely used they were found suitable as they are mammals, easy to house and they can breed[13]. In comparison of the common
have been more popular for the behavioral testing method, and firmly established as model creator[14]. Although the hamsters and the Guinea pigs are under test for the experiments. Research, Not at all like different rodents utilized for mice and rodents, Submili is identified with the marina and is in some cases alluded to as the marine model. Early instances of rat conduct testing remember utilizing labyrinths for Carl Leslie's learning and memor[15]. In the mid 20th century. At first, wild-got rodents were utilized for tests however this training changed with the presentation of strains reared by mouse and rodent fans.[16] Following around 100 years of reproducing, contemporary lab creatures are currently extensively more tame than their wild partners. The spatial behaviour are generally developed in rodents because they have a congenital drive to find and explore the new environment and to move through the narrow passages[17]. Consequently, numerous intellectual capacities, including those that are not really spatial in nature, like working memory, are analyzed utilizing assignments with a solid spatial segment[18]. In this paper we basically discussed about the various methods and paradigms that have been adopted by the the researchers to assess the cognitive function of the rodents. The interest to know about the animal behaviour have come a long way since the last century with an advancement in the refinement of the paradigms. These animals should have firstly tested on the different behavioral domains in which the health of the animal, their well being, their motor and reflexive capability, their emotional behaviour, anxiety, social behaviour, learning skills and memory should be tested. In the recent year the learning and memory process has gained the interest for the studies. Many strains were proposed by the researchers to examine the role of the different genes in cognitive behaviour. It is important for the investigators to get know about the behavioral Phenotype of their mice and in more completely in course of the cognitive testing. We are discussing the various test method that adopted by the investigators to know behaviour and assess the cognitive functions of the rodents.
Zero Maze Test to Assess The Anxiety In Rodents
This is typically the first test that we give to those mice that are first time entering to the Core Facility, that is Zero Maze Test. First of all the Shepherd and his colleagues described and validate the Zero Maze Test Pharmacological for the assessment of the behavior of rodents like anxiety[19]. In this process they took a maze and elevated it at 18 above the maze was consists of a circular runway that was bifurcated in two
open and two close quadrants as shown in figure 1[20]. They fitted a camera directly the over the apparatus to capture the behaviour of mice, later they use Noldus Observer or Eth-vision programme for the analyses. In their testing they found the best and reliable results, when the rodent bring many hours before the testing to the rooms and the it remain undisturbed until the test happens[21]. They allowed the rodents to freely move for the 5 min to explore the apparatus after that they scored the rodents on the various behaviour measures like ( time spent by the mice in the free area, no of entries in open area, the no of frequency of moving from the open area to close area) with all this scores they assessed the anxiety level of mice and found that the rodents with anxiety like phenotype showed a low affinity to investigate the free region comparative with controlling the mice and can show decreased recurrence of the danger evaluation or exploratory conduct with or without upgraded freezing or prepping.[22].
Figure 1. Zero Maze Table[20]
Object-Discrimination Test for Rodents
This, the object discrimination test permits quick screening of acknowledgement memory in mice.[23]. General evaluations of short-and long haul memory can be made, recognizing the span between beginning article execution and resulting testing.[24]. It has been discovered that openness of the mice to the test field for 30 min preceding article acquaintance is adequate with acclimating them to the test. All the phases of the test video captured for the observation and analyse[25]. A potential issue with this test is that the mouse may have a characteristic tendency of one article over another. To restrict this issue, a little gathering of mice of every genotype is normally presented to a scope of various articles prior to building up a proper test.
Incidentally, we have discovered that multi-patterned Legos objects function admirably in this test. It is significant that the items be comparative or more modest in
size compared with the mouse, as this encourages investigation; bigger articles can advance neo-phobia and decreased investigation[26].
Non-spatial Transverse Transverse Method
Non-spatial Transverse method is one of the most tangled for testing the non-spatial learning in mice. This test has benefits over the tests recently depicted, in that this assignment assesses the capacity of the mouse to make the relationship among signs and to gain from these portrayals while additionally applying these relationships to new possibilities[27]. One drawback is that the test is work escalated and can set aside significant effort to finish. Nonetheless, the information can be investigated from an assortment of viewpoints to contemplate psychological capacities in mice[28]. Before the doing non-spatial transverse test the mice has to keep without food for seven days and keep around 95% of their free-taking care of weight during testing. Firstly the mouse goes through a training in a dig and then trained in a small sand containing bowl and other small materials to uncover a food reward. The clean and new cages take to use for testing[29]. The testing method starts with the phrase premise-paired and have a condition to present five different odour to present. Mice sets need to arrive at a learning model of in any event 80% on three sequential days prior to blending them in with randomized and sequenced two distinct kinds of test preliminaries. These two probe trials are essential to get know whether the mice are able to learn transitive interface by using different sets of odour or not[30].
Radial Arm Maze
This strategy is for the most part used to become more acquainted with about the different part of learning and memory conduct of the rodents by including their spatial and non-spatial characteristics just as working and reference memory.[31]. The test maze has an octagonal shape and central area with eight sides of similar size facing outward. The tested maze was elevated and had open arms to enable mice to use extra-zyme signals to navigate the labyrinths[32]. For the examination of the non- spatial learning the inter-maze cues has been employed recently.For this situation the particular examples or surfaces put at the launch of each arm from the focal center point and each just at the kickoff of the specific arms at the trying period. The investigators are able to work both simultaneously with both the spatial mapping and to study reference memory, by using the the strategy in con-junction with the conventional maze arm memory test[33]. Rats are subjected to daily handling and 90%
of their free feeding is kept for food restriction, before they brought to the radial arm maze test. The investigators has found that the mice have faced problem to find the rewards in arm once they had learn to eat the central hub of the maze[33]. The mice were keep in the maze until the all food rewards retrieved. Repeated entries were assumed as the assessment of performance. The total time taken in retrieve the food rewards was recorded to assessment[34].
Morris Water Maze Test
The Morris water test is generally conduct to make learn mice that how to escape from water by swimming through a hidden hole that is put below the surface. If we take animals in control and in special training conditions they can learn in a very short time or may be in a single day[35]. The main advantage of this test is it does not required more food and water the animals can be trained under less water and food conditions, this his helpful in knowing the rodents natural swimming behaviour. A few investigations have tracked down that an unblemished hippocampus is needed for this undertaking and that the hippocampus-cortical pathways and the dorsal striatum assume a significant part in the guideline of spatial memory testing.[36]. Water-maze testing requires a tremendous zone of lab space, where signals outside the feeder can stay stable through preliminaries. White dye and nontoxic white poster paint are used to create opaque large spherical pools.[37]. The powdered milk can also be take in use but the milk become rancid after a day thus it increases the work load of the investigators. During this test the behaviour of the mice captured by the camera that was fitted above the swimming pool [38]. After that the data was analyzed by the several tracking programs like Noldus Etho-vision and SMART. Each of the programme give a fundamental measurement that include path lengths, swim time and velocities and as well included the multiple analyze of the path-length data[39]. The mice were controlled day by day for seven days prior to testing. The test essentially comprises three phases. An obtaining test is a place where creatures utilize extra labyrinth prompts to discover the area of the secret stage.[40]. Second is retention and probe trials in this trials process the platform has been removed and get instruction to swim on the previous platforms[41]. Third is flag trials for the cued and navigation tasks, In this test, a banner is set on the moving stage to survey the visual sensor- meter capacity of the mice.[42]. Rodents have been taken to show different explicit procedures and examples in swimming route during learning. The analyses of these
swim paths can provides a insight view of the behaviour of the rodents. A detailed examination study found the in the initial moments of acquisition the mice adopted the thigmotaxis or swimming patterns along with the swimming paths[43].
Automated Testing
Continued advances in electronics and image analysis accelerate automated behavioral testing processes, possibly faster.[44] The utilization of automated systems has a few potential advantages like target scoring, evasion of creature experimenter connections, broadened trials, and diminished work exertion[45]. Completely automated frameworks, notwithstanding, are as yet utilized sparingly, albeit mechanized information assortment is somewhat normal and operant cells typically just require the creature to be set in the test chamber, while the remainder of the interaction is computerized[46]. Watching out for singular creatures inside a gathering can be accomplished by the utilization of different fluorescent colors Animal hide that permits programmed appraisal of social mobility throughout expanded time- frames.Completely automated testing can be performed rather than creatures in a test confine appended to a home pen or through a mechanized arranging framework. This system does, nonetheless, have certain impediments[47]. The test hardware can, for instance, just be utilized by each gathering of creatures in turn, and to test a gathering of creatures in a few diverse in-confine test frameworks, the creatures must be moved between them[48].
Touch Screen Method
To accomplish fruitful interpretation of discoveries from animal models to people, the psychological errands we use with our rodents ought to look like as intently as conceivable those utilized with human subjects. Progressively, human subjects are tried utilizing computer automated strategies[49].An especially amazing methodology is the "touchscreen" testing technique, in which subjects react directly to upgrades on a PC screen.The benefits of this strategy are various and incorporate encouraged execution because of contiguity among improvements and reactions and the capacity to introduce a battery of various psychological tests in which boundaries like boosts, reactions, and criticism are steady across assignments and conditions[50].To make a cognitive testing strategy for rodents Matched, quite far, to the touchscreen test technique Humans, a technique built up the touchscreen testing strategy for mice, a technique that has as of late been adjusted for mice[51]. This computerized behavioral
testing strategy permits PC realistic boosts to be introduced to the rat and the rat to react to the PC screen by means of a nose-jab[52]. The nose-hit reaction is recognized by an infrared touchscreen get together around the screen. Notwithstanding the advantages of encouraging interpretation among human and creature tests, the work offers a few different advantages, including low engine interest, simplicity of organization, and exactness of undertaking boundaries. The technique has been utilized viably in various social, injury, and pharmacological examinations[53].
GNG TEST (GO/NO/GO)
This test is a type of stop-signal reaction time test that utilizes an acknowledgment work where the reaction time is dissected[54]. In this test basically go/no/go or go/no/go combinations are included in which the go trials the animals presented with a stimulus for example light, and the animals should response to this stimulus through a lever press or nose pose and after that the response the mice were rewarded[55].
For the "no/go" trials, signs, for example, a tone or glimmering light are introduced before the "go" prompt, and the animal should able to figure out how to restrain its reaction to get support[56]. The introduction of "go-no" and "go" upgrades in progression in a solitary preliminary delivers a "commonality based clash" and gives a setting where the mistake is thought about by contrasting the valid and bogus reactions made by the creature, can be followed[57]. GNG testing is generally directed in operant chambers furnished with improvement lights applied over two switch presses or with two enlightened nose-jab openings. Behavioral performance in both "go" and "n/go" testing is surveyed by deciding the per cent effective preliminaries and the normal dormancy to make the right social reaction. The information can likewise be dissected with signal-location strategies[58]. Wrong reactions in GNG testing may result from indiscreet or perseverative reactions.Albeit the GNG test is delegated a non-perceived memory test, it can likewise be utilized to evaluate diverting and impulsivity[59]. Thus, the GNG test has been utilized to demonstrate the neurological and social deficiencies in transient and inhibitory control found in patients with ADG. Studies in mice and people show that injuries of the basal forebrain and other cortical territories "don't move", while "go" reactions endure, proposing that the psychological brokenness that appeared in the GNG test is incautious. Can be answerable for and intellectual[60]. Control. The two cycles seem,
by all accounts, to be directed in the front cingulate cortex, a district of the mind answerable for checking strife[61].
Avoidance Test
To examine the different memory functions of the mice Active and Passive use are generally place in use that basically includes acquisition, short term or working memory, consolidation and long term memory. Although the two test require the mouse to avoid the shock, the paradigms are vary from each other in that every paradigm assess the the interesting psychological credits of the rodents. Figure 2 shows the avoiding test.
Figure 2. Passive, Active and Shuttle Avoidance in The Rodents.[62]
In the passive avoidance, the mouse figures out how to stay away from a connecting chamber where the shock was recently conveyed. Subsequently the mice need to stifle its common inclination to enter obscured, restricting spaces. The active avoidance requires the mouse to make a proactive reaction to get away from a chamber or region inside the chamber where foot shock was recently directed.[62]
Although passive avoidance establishes one-preliminary learning and surveys the capacity of the mouse to hold and review data about the climate and foot shock, active avoidance tests require various learning preliminaries. Active Avoidance techniques offer the chance to analyze obtaining and combination inside a solitary creature over
testing, while various creatures are needed in passive avoidance tests for a similar reason.[63]
Passive Avoidance
Passive Avoidance Test is a trial of quick one-preliminary realizing, where a mouse is moulded with a solitary aversive occasion and are subsequently tried for memory of that experience.[64] By testing various mice at a various time focuses, a few parts of memory can be researched including securing, solidification, maintenance, and review.
Moreover, annihilation can likewise be assessed.[65] Passive avoidance ordinarily happens in a two-chamber framework where a chamber is enlightened with light while a neighbouring chamber is in obscurity. Many mechanical assemblies are economically accessible with automatic gates and mechanized frameworks that screen the mouse's field, making testing simple and computerized. An important consideration in test design is the selection of intervals between conditioning and testing. The length of this interval depends on whether the investigator wants to assess acquisition, working memory, or long-term recall. For acquisition, periods may be used as 5-minute periods, while intervals between 30 minutes to several hours may be indicative of short-term memory processes.[66] For procurement, periods might be utilized as 5-minute time spans, while intervals between 30 minutes to a few hours might be demonstrative of transient memory measures. Retained retention at 5 minutes but poor or interrupted performance at 30 or 60 minutes may reflect insufficient memory consolidation. Prolonged memory usually refers to the procedures implemented after 8 hours after conditioning.[67]
Conditioned Emotional Responses
The conditioned fear reaction has become a typical and incredible paradigm, with which to examine the neurological premise of passionate reactions just as learning and memory. This Pavlovian paradigm includes presenting the animal to a nonpartisan condition upgrade (CS) and binds it to an immature unconditioned boost (UCS).Incidentally, the CS is normally a light or tone, and it ordinarily likewise signals inside a similar chamber where the creature was adapted. In the wake of blending the CS and UCS, the CS alone frequently evokes a protective or
"unfortunate" reaction that may include idleness or freezing conduct.
CTA(Condition Test Aversion)
CTA was recognized when agents tracked down that the lighted mice had stayed away from arrangements or food varieties that were available during radiation therapy.[68] At the point when mice endured a novel taste (CS) and were trailed by transient gastrointestinal misery because of low-portion radiation (UCS), CTA created.
This response brings about a lower admission of saccharin at a later introduction.
Later investigations found that CTA can create after openness to various other infection-causing specialists, including chemotherapy specialists, high portions of apomorphine or amphetamine, and lithium chloride[69]. For CTA advancement, the creature should have the option to identify CS; It ought to have the option to become ill from UCS hazard; It ought to have the option to make a coordinated effort between the US and CS; And, eventually, it ought to have the option to dodge CS. The CTA is a generally basic test to work, and commonly requires two days of consolidated preparing and testing. Mice are set to test before food limitation to guarantee that they will burn through adequate measures of novel food during moulding and assurance that a relationship between CS and UCS will create. Then again, water limitation might be utilized so lithium chloride treatment can be joined with the utilization of saccharin arrangement. In our research centre, we have tracked down that the two cycles function admirably with mice. The benefit of utilizing novel enhanced food is that it is exceptionally tasteful to mice, it is not difficult to gauge the measure of food devoured, and the test can be directed for a brief time frame. By correlation, saccharin-seasoned arrangements normally should be devoured for a more extended timeframe to guarantee that adequate measures of the arrangement have been burned through. Likewise, when utilizing a fluid CS, it might require a few days to settle the admission, and examination of liquid admission typically requires more nitty-gritty and exact estimations, like eating by mice. Also, is accessible for drinking chamber (see Columbus Instruments, Columbus, Oh)). Perusers keen on utilizing saccharin- scented water in CTAs for mice ought to counsel Cannon and associates[70]
Shock-Threshold Testing
To assess affectability to foot quakes, creatures are presented to shifting powers of seared foot quakes and tape their social reactions. In our lab, we utilize seven unique forces of foot injury (0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mA) and present them in irregular request, where every power is estimated in 2 seconds. Is introduced multiple
times. Conduct reactions are made by hand or with an automated conduct scoring program (Noldus Observer, Noldus Information Technology, Leesburg, VA).
Reactions are put on a rating scale, with the most minimal level of the reaction being scored as nothing, permitting no reaction to the foot jerk. Low-level responses incorporate freezing, facial cleaning, or self-prepping, shaking, or moving quickly;
While moderate responses incorporate shivering of the tailor a withdrawal of the foot jerk. Moderate responsive responses incorporate kicking, vocalization, and locomotor reactivity, for example, shooting and jumping. The most significant level of reaction includes bouncing against chamber dividers or roofs. Social scores are communicated dependent on the kind of reaction and are examined as a component of stun power.
For social moulding, we select the degree of foot quake that advances just moderate reactions. Foot snaps that instigate successive tones, dashing or hopping can hurt the creature and cause uncertain outcomes.[71]
Multiple-Choice Serial-Reaction Test
This test is similar to human continuous performance tasks where the person scans an array of objects that are presented in briefs. Correct selection of the location where the visual target was presented in reward.[72] The Five-Choice Serial-Reaction Time Task (5-CSRTT) is an assessment of abnormal execution and carefulness, where the mouse needs to screen three to five areas at the same time for the introduction of a concise visual improvement.[73] The testing chamber normally comprises of a square box where, on one side, five nose-jab openings with lights are situated in a flat line equidistant and at eye level to the mouse. On the divider straightforwardly inverse the gaps is a little opening for the conveyance of food reward.The nose-striking cluster comprises five openings, where one of them is enlightened arbitrarily. Toward the start of preparing, a gap is generally enlightened for 20 to 30 seconds, and this length is decreased to around 2 to 4 seconds as the mouse turns out to be more effective at work. Right reactions incorporate nose punching in the light hole; Nose jabbing is coordinated out in non-prepared gaps, where the nose-jab gap and house light are smothered for 5 to 10 seconds past the length of the 5-second interatrial stretch.
Exactness and speed of nose jabbing are taken as proportions of mindful capacity, and restraint of unseemly reactions is taken as a proportion of disposition control (eg, impulsivity, determination), as the primary measures in this test are utilized.[74]
Latent Inhibition (LI)
LI is a test that inspects specific consideration tending to parts of learning and memory. LI alludes to the hindrance of moulding because of an upgrade went before by its rehashed non-enactment.[75] The LI test consists of two stages. In the first stage, animals are divided into two groups: one receives multiple presentations of stimuli in the test apparatus, while the other is exposed to the apparatus only. In the second stage, preoperative stimulation is associated with an adverse event. Typically, LI is evident when animals are exposed to stimuli, as is exposure to the test apparatus only, demonstrating a delay in eliciting conditioned responses. Tactics for assessing LI include the use of remedial behavior with conditioned suppression or avoidance of foot-shock or conditional processes such as conditional fear[76]. In a preliminary study, mice were given 6-hydroxy-dopamine in the dorsal noradrenergic bundle to induce norepinephrine deficiency in the forebrain [77]. LI deficiency was found in these animals. Later studies have shown that elimination of the hippocampus prevented LI and this effect was mediated primarily through nucleus accumbens [78].
Interestingly, N-methyl-D-aspirate (NMDA) lesions have inhibition from the entrance cortex to ventricle subcutaneous LI, and these effects were reversed by systemic administration of haloperidol [79]. In addition to this pathway, more recent studies have shown that lesions of the basolateral amygdala consistently produce LI and that these effects, including those induced by lesions of the nucleus, are ameliorated with atypic antipsychotics - possibly, through antagonists of5-HT2A receptors.[80]
Conclusion
The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of tests intended to assess intellectual capacity in mice. A subordinate objective was to make the specialist mindful that neurological and mental brokenness can likewise bother comprehension and that these unpredictable practices have advantageous interaction. Given these connections, it is essential to assess mice on different components of conduct to distinguish their aggregate. In intellectual testing, numerous conduct and physiological insufficiency can bewilder psychological execution. At long last, since the hereditary foundation of mice can altogether impact conduct it is important that the proper controls be remembered for the investigation so any social brokenness can be all the more obviously attributed to the gene(s) under examination instead of
addressing different impacts.Until this point, creature models utilizing freak mice have given new experiences into conduct work. Although these models have given priceless data, recall that these creatures just give appraisals of the manifestations and inadequacies of human patients.In spite of this insurance, it ought to be accentuated that creature research doesn't mean to accurately impersonate the human sicknesses or issues under examination however to give more understanding into the fundamental hereditary and sub-atomic instruments engaged with the statement of conduct. When these systems are better seen, new helpful methodologies can be investigated and created to treat human patients.
Reference
1. Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM. The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learning & memory. 2008 Jul 1;15(7):516-23.
2. Petryna A. When experiments travel: clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton University Press; 2009 Apr 27.
3. Tringe SG, Von Mering C, Kobayashi A, Salamov AA, Chen K, Chang HW, Podar M, Short JM, Mathur EJ, Detter JC, Bork P. Comparative metagenomics of microbial communities. Science. 2005 Apr 22;308(5721):554-7.
4. Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM. The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learning & memory. 2008 Jul 1;15(7):516-23.
5. Hvoslef-Eide M, Mar AC, Nilsson SR, Alsiö J, Heath CJ, Saksida LM, Robbins TW, Bussey TJ. The NEWMEDS rodent touchscreen test battery for cognition relevant to schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology. 2015 Nov 1;232(21-22):3853-72.
6. Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM. The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learning & memory. 2008 Jul 1;15(7):516-23.
7. Nithianantharajah J, McKechanie AG, Stewart TJ, Johnstone M, Blackwood DH, St Clair D, Grant SG, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM. Bridging the translational divide:
identical cognitive touchscreen testing in mice and humans carrying mutations in a disease-relevant homologous gene. Scientific reports. 2015 Oct 1;5(1):1-5.
8. Horner AE, Heath CJ, Hvoslef-Eide M, Kent BA, Kim CH, Nilsson SR, Alsiö J, Oomen CA, Holmes A, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ. The touchscreen operant
platform for testing learning and memory in rats and mice. Nature protocols.
2013 Oct;8(10):1961-84.
9. Hånell A, Marklund N. Structured evaluation of rodent behavioral tests used in drug discovery research. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2014 Jul 22;8:252.
10. Cryan JF, Mombereau C. In search of a depressed mouse: utility of models for studying depression-related behavior in genetically modified mice. Molecular psychiatry. 2004 Apr;9(4):326-57.
11. Pavlov PI. Conditioned reflexes: an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Annals of neurosciences. 2010 Jul;17(3):136.
12. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC. Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. Science. 1999 Jun 4;284(5420):1670-2.
13. Belzung C, Griebel G. Measuring normal and pathological anxiety-like behaviour in mice: a review. Behavioural brain research. 2001 Nov 8;125(1-2):141-9.
14. Cryan JF, Markou A, Lucki I. Assessing antidepressant activity in rodents: recent developments and future needs. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2002 May 1;23(5):238-45.
15. SCHEFF SW, BALDWIN SA, BROWN RW, KRAEMER PJ. Morris water maze deficits in rats following traumatic brain injury: lateral controlled cortical impact. Journal of neurotrauma. 1997 Sep;14(9):615-27.
16. Jennings M, Batchelor GR, Brain PF, Dick A, Elliott H, Francis RJ, Hubrecht RC, Hurst JL, Morton DB, Peters AG, Raymond R. Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse: report of the Rodent Refinement Working Party. Laboratory animals.
1998 Jul 1;32(3):233-59.
17. Yoder RM, Taube JS. Head direction cell activity in mice: robust directional signal depends on intact otolith organs. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009 Jan 28;29(4):1061-76.
18. Bimonte-Nelson HA, Hunter CL, Nelson ME, Granholm AC. Frontal cortex BDNF levels correlate with working memory in an animal model of Down syndrome. Behavioural brain research. 2003 Feb 17;139(1-2):47-57.
19. Shepherd JK, Grewal SS, Fletcher A, Bill DJ, Dourish CT. Behavioural and pharmacological characterisation of the elevated “zero-maze” as an animal model of anxiety. Psychopharmacology. 1994 Sep;116(1):56-64.
20. Rodriguiz RM, Wetsel WC. 12 Assessments of Cognitive Deficits in Mutant
21. Kliethermes CL, Cronise K, Crabbe JC. Anxiety‐like behavior in mice in two apparatuses during withdrawal from chronic ethanol vapor inhalation.
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2004 Jul;28(7):1012-9.
22. Pogorelov VM, Rodriguiz RM, Insco ML, Caron MG, Wetsel WC. Novelty seeking and stereotypic activation of behavior in mice with disruption of the Dat1 gene. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005 Oct;30(10):1818-31.
23. Tang YP, Shimizu E, Dube GR, Rampon C, Kerchner GA, Zhuo M, Liu G, Tsien JZ. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature. 1999 Sep;401(6748):63-9.
24. Mumby DG, Gaskin S, Glenn MJ, Schramek TE, Lehmann H. Hippocampal damage and exploratory preferences in rats: memory for objects, places, and contexts. Learning & memory. 2002 Mar 1;9(2):49-57.
25. Tang YP, Shimizu E, Dube GR, Rampon C, Kerchner GA, Zhuo M, Liu G, Tsien JZ. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature. 1999 Sep;401(6748):63-9.
26. Rodriguiz RM, Chu R, Caron MG, Wetsel WC. Aberrant responses in social interaction of dopamine transporter knockout mice. Behavioural brain research.
2004 Jan 5;148(1-2):185-98.
27. Eichenbaum H, Cohen NJ. From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. Oxford University Press on Demand; 2004 Nov 18.
28. Rondi-Reig L, Libbey M, Eichenbaum H, Tonegawa S. CA1-specific N-methyl- D-aspartate receptor knockout mice are deficient in solving a nonspatial transverse patterning task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
2001 Mar 13;98(6):3543-8.
29. Rodriguiz RM, Chu R, Caron MG, Wetsel WC. Aberrant responses in social interaction of dopamine transporter knockout mice. Behavioural brain research.
2004 Jan 5;148(1-2):185-98.
30. Cohen NJ. From Conditioning to Conscious Recollection Memory Systems of the Brain. Oxford Psychology Series, Volume 35. Oxford Scholarship Online; 2001.
31. Schwegler H, Crusio WE. Correlations between radial-maze learning and structural variations of septum and hippocampus in rodents. Behavioural brain research. 1995 Feb 1;67(1):29-41.
32. Levin ED, Christopher NC, Lateef S, Elamir BM, Patel M, Liang LP, Crapo JD.
Extracellular superoxide dismutase overexpression protects against aging-induced cognitive impairment in mice. Behavior genetics. 2002 Mar;32(2):119-25.
33. Rawlins JN, Lyford GL, Seferiades A, Deacon RM, Cassaday HJ. Critical determinants of nonspatial working memory deficits in rats with conventional lesions of the hippocampus or fornix. Behavioral neuroscience. 1993 Jun;107(3):420.
34. Gainetdinov RR, Wetsel WC, Jones SR, Levin ED, Jaber M, Caron MG. Role of serotonin in the paradoxical calming effect of psychostimulants on hyperactivity.
science. 1999 Jan 15;283(5400):397-401.
35. Gobbo OL, O’Mara SM. Impact of enriched-environment housing on brain- derived neurotrophic factor and on cognitive performance after a transient global ischemia. Behavioural brain research. 2004 Jul 9;152(2):231-41.
36. Buhot MC, Wolff M, Savova M, Malleret G, Hen R, Segu L. Protective effect of 5-HT1B receptor gene deletion on the age-related decline in spatial learning abilities in mice. Behavioural brain research. 2003 Jun 16;142(1-2):135-42.
37. Wolfer DP, Madani R, Valenti P, Lipp HP. Extended analysis of path data from mutant mice using the public domain software Wintrack. Physiology & Behavior.
2001 Aug 1;73(5):745-53.
38. Wolff M, Savova M, Malleret G, Segu L, Buhot MC. Differential learning abilities of 129T2/Sv and C57BL/6J mice as assessed in three water maze protocols. Behavioural brain research. 2002 Nov 15;136(2):463-74.
39. Wolfer DP, Madani R, Valenti P, Lipp HP. Extended analysis of path data from mutant mice using the public domain software Wintrack. Physiology & Behavior.
2001 Aug 1;73(5):745-53.
40. Gobbo OL, O’Mara SM. Impact of enriched-environment housing on brain- derived neurotrophic factor and on cognitive performance after a transient global ischemia. Behavioural brain research. 2004 Jul 9;152(2):231-41.
41. Contet C, Rawlins JN, Bannerman DM. Faster is not surer—a comparison of C57BL/6J and 129S2/Sv mouse strains in the watermaze. Behavioural brain research. 2001 Nov 8;125(1-2):261-7.
42. Dalm S, Grootendorst J, De Kloet ER, Oitzl MS. Quantification of swim patterns in the Morris water maze. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
43. Dahlqvist P, Rönnbäck A, Bergström SA, Söderström I, Olsson T. Environmental enrichment reverses learning impairment in the Morris water maze after focal cerebral ischemia in rats. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2004 Apr;19(8):2288-98.
44. Shemesh Y, Sztainberg Y, Forkosh O, Shlapobersky T, Chen A, Schneidman E.
High-order social interactions in groups of mice. Elife. 2013 Sep 3;2:e00759.
45. Crabbe JC, Morris RG. Festina lente: late-night thoughts on high-throughput screening of mouse behavior. Nature Neuroscience. 2004 Nov;7(11):1175-9.
46. Winter Y, Schaefers AT. A sorting system with automated gates permits individual operant experiments with mice from a social home cage. Journal of neuroscience methods. 2011 Mar 30;196(2):276-80.
47. Zaccaria KJ, Lagace DC, Eisch AJ, McCasland JS. Resistance to change and vulnerability to stress: autistic‐like features of GAP43‐deficient mice. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2010 Nov;9(8):985-96.
48. Gorelik R, Yang C, Kameswaran V, Dominguez R, Svitkina T. Mechanisms of plasma membrane targeting of formin mDia2 through its amino terminal domains.
Molecular biology of the cell. 2011 Jan 15;22(2):189-201.
49. Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM. The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learning & memory. 2008 Jul 1;15(7):516-23.
50. Hvoslef-Eide M, Mar AC, Nilsson SR, Alsiö J, Heath CJ, Saksida LM, Robbins TW, Bussey TJ. The NEWMEDS rodent touchscreen test battery for cognition relevant to schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology. 2015 Nov 1;232(21-22):3853-72.
51. Horner AE, Heath CJ, Hvoslef-Eide M, Kent BA, Kim CH, Nilsson SR, Alsiö J, Oomen CA, Holmes A, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ. The touchscreen operant platform for testing learning and memory in rats and mice. Nature protocols.
2013 Oct;8(10):1961-84.
52. Bussey TJ, Holmes A, Lyon L, Mar AC, McAllister KA, Nithianantharajah J, Oomen CA, Saksida LM. New translational assays for preclinical modelling of cognition in schizophrenia: the touchscreen testing method for mice and rats.
Neuropharmacology. 2012 Mar 1;62(3):1191-203.
53. Mar AC, Horner AE, Nilsson SR, Alsiö J, Kent BA, Kim CH, Holmes A, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ. The touchscreen operant platform for assessing executive
54. Logan GD. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users' guide to the stop signal paradigm.
55. Nelson JK, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Sylvester CY, Jonides J, Smith EE. Dissociable neural mechanisms underlying response-based and familiarity-based conflict in working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003 Sep 16;100(19):11171-5.
56. Eagle DM, Robbins TW. Inhibitory control in rats performing a stop-signal reaction-time task: effects of lesions of the medial striatum and d-amphetamine.
Behavioral neuroscience. 2003 Dec;117(6):1302.
57. Sahgal A. Behavioural Neuroscience. A Practical Approach. 1993:49-54.
58. Aggleton JP. Behavioural tests for the recognition of non-spatial information by rats. Behavioural neuroscience: A practical approach. 1993;1:81-93.
59. Logan GD, Cowan WB. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological review. 1984 Jul;91(3):295.
60. Eagle DM, Robbins TW. Inhibitory control in rats performing a stop-signal reaction-time task: effects of lesions of the medial striatum and d-amphetamine.
Behavioral neuroscience. 2003 Dec;117(6):1302.
61. Rubia K, Smith AB, Brammer MJ, Toone B, Taylor E. Abnormal brain activation during inhibition and error detection in medication-naive adolescents with ADHD.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 2005 Jun 1;162(6):1067-75.
62. Weinberger SB, Koob GF, Martinez JL. Differences in one-way active avoidance learning in mice of three inbred strains. Behavior genetics. 1992 Mar;22(2):177- 88.
63. Rodriguiz RM, Wetsel WC. 12 Assessments of Cognitive Deficits in Mutant Mice. Animal models of cognitive impairment. 2006 Jun 22:187.
64. El-Ghundi M, O’Dowd BF, George SR. Prolonged fear responses in mice lacking dopamine D1 receptor. Brain research. 2001 Feb 16;892(1):86-93.
65. Rodriguiz RM, Wetsel WC. 12 Assessments of Cognitive Deficits in Mutant Mice. Animal models of cognitive impairment. 2006 Jun 22:187.
66. Porton B, Rodriguiz RM, Phillips LE, Gilbert IV JW, Feng J, Greengardˆ P, Kao HT, Wetsel WC. Mice lacking synapsin III show abnormalities in explicit memory and conditioned fear. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2010 Apr;9(3):257-68.
67. Ennaceur A, Delacour J. A new one-trial test for neurobiological studies of memory in rats. 1: Behavioral data. Behavioural brain research. 1988 Nov 1;31(1):47-59.
68. Garcia J, Kimeldorf DJ, Koelling RA. Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation. Science. 1955.
69. Reilly S, Bornovalova MA. Conditioned taste aversion and amygdala lesions in the rat: a critical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2005 Jan 1;29(7):1067-88.
70. Cannon CM, Scannell CA, Palmiter RD. Mice lacking dopamine D1 receptors express normal lithium chloride‐induced conditioned taste aversion for salt but not sucrose. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2005 May;21(9):2600-4.
71. Leer MN, Bradbury A, Maloney JC, Stewart CN. Elevated shock threshold in sexually receptive female rats. Physiology & behavior. 1988 Jan 1;42(6):617-20.
72. Robbins T. The 5-choice serial reaction time task: behavioural pharmacology and functional neurochemistry. Psychopharmacology. 2002 Oct;163(3):362-80.
73. Robbins T, Janice M, Killcross S, Pretsell D. Methods for assessing attention and stimulus control in the rat.
74. Dalley JW, Cardinal RN, Robbins TW. Prefrontal executive and cognitive functions in rodents: neural and neurochemical substrates. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews. 2004 Jan 1;28(7):771-84.
75. Lubow RE, Lubow RE. Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory.
Cambridge University Press; 1989 Sep 29.
76. Meyer U, Feldon J, Yee BK. Expression of the CS-and US-pre-exposure effects in the conditioned taste aversion paradigm and their abolition following systemic amphetamine treatment in C57BL6/J mice. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Dec;29(12):2140-8.
77. Mason ST, Lin D. Dorsal noradrenergic bundle and selective attention in the rat.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 1980 Oct;94(5):819.
78. Clark AJ, Feldon J, Rawlins JN. Aspiration lesions of rat ventral hippocampus disinhibit responding in conditioned suppression or extinction, but spare latent inhibition and the partial reinforcement extinction effect. Neuroscience. 1992 Jun 1;48(4):821-9.
79. Yee BK, Feldon J, Rawlins JN. Latent inhibition in rats is abolished by NMDA-
prevented by systemic haloperidol treatment. Behavioral neuroscience. 1995 Apr;109(2):227.
80. Schiller D, Zuckerman L, Weiner I. Abnormally persistent latent inhibition induced by lesions to the nucleus accumbens core, basolateral amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex is reversed by clozapine but not by haloperidol. Journal of psychiatric research. 2006 Mar 1;40(2):167-77.
