Analysis of Vigilant Scanning Behavior in Mice Using Two-point Digital Video Tracking

Overview

Journal Psychopharmacology (Berl)

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2011 Dec 24

PMID 22193725

Citations 5

Authors

Kwok Ho C Choy

Jing Yu

David Hawkes

Dmitry N Mayorov

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Rationale: Vigilant scanning of the environment is a major risk assessment activity in many species. However, due to difficulties in its manual scoring, scanning has rarely been quantified in laboratory rodent studies.

Objectives And Methods: We developed a novel method for automated measurement of vigilant scanning in mice, based on simultaneous tracking of an animal's nose- and center-points. The studied scanning parameters included the frequency and duration of scans and scanning (nose-point) speed. The sensitivity of these parameters to anxiolytic diazepam (1-2 mg/kg) and anxiogenic FG-7142 (5 mg/kg) was evaluated upon exposure to the context (conditioning chamber) before and 24 h after footshock.

Results: Scanning behavior was observed in all C57BL/6, 129xC57BL/6, and DBA/2 mice, as recurrent stationary episodes accompanied by observatory head movements. These episodes respectively comprised 28 ± 1%, 29 ± 1%, and 24 ± 2% of preexposure time. Diazepam dose-dependently decreased the scanning frequency and duration, without affecting the scanning speed. Fear conditioning increased freezing and inhibited other behaviors upon reexposure, with scanning being only marginally affected and still comprising 17 ± 2%, 16 ± 2%, and 19 ± 1% of reexposure time, respectively. Consequently, scanning accounted for most (DBA/2) or virtually all (C57BL/6 and 129xC57BL/6) gross motor activities upon reexposure. FG-7142 mirrored the effects of conditioning, inducing behavioral inhibition with scanning being least affected.

Conclusions: Two-point tracking is effective for studying vigilant scanning in mice. Using this approach, we show that scanning is a key risk assessment activity in both unconditioned and conditioned mice; scanning is resistant to threat-induced behavioral inhibition and is highly sensitive to anxiolytic treatment.

Citing Articles

Shaping behaviors through social experience and their proposed sensitivity to stress.

Rosenkranz J Learn Mem. 2024; 31(12).

PMID: 39681461 PMC: 11662146. DOI: 10.1101/lm.053926.124.

An infralimbic cortex neuronal ensemble encoded during learning attenuates fear generalization expression.

Subramanian R, Bauman A, Carpenter O, Cho C, Coste G, Dam A bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39229064 PMC: 11370439. DOI: 10.1101/2024.08.18.608308.

Supervised machine learning aided behavior classification in pigeons.

Wittek N, Wittek K, Keibel C, Gunturkun O Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(4):1624-1640.

PMID: 35701721 PMC: 10250476. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01881-w.

Sex differences in PTSD resilience and susceptibility: Challenges for animal models of fear learning.

Shansky R Neurobiol Stress. 2015; 1:60-65.

PMID: 25729759 PMC: 4340080. DOI: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2014.09.005.

Delay and trace fear conditioning in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice: issues of measurement and performance.

Tipps M, Raybuck J, Buck K, Lattal K Learn Mem. 2014; 21(8):380-93.

PMID: 25031364 PMC: 4105718. DOI: 10.1101/lm.035261.114.

References

Bednekoff P, Lima S . Randomness, chaos and confusion in the study of antipredator vigilance. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011; 13(7):284-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01327-5. View

Holmes A . Targeted gene mutation approaches to the study of anxiety-like behavior in mice. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2001; 25(3):261-73. DOI: 10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00012-4. View

Anseloni V, Brandao M . Ethopharmacological analysis of behaviour of rats using variations of the elevated plus-maze. Behav Pharmacol. 1998; 8(6-7):533-40. DOI: 10.1097/00008877-199711000-00011. View

Griebel G, Belzung C, Perrault G, Sanger D . Differences in anxiety-related behaviours and in sensitivity to diazepam in inbred and outbred strains of mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000; 148(2):164-70. DOI: 10.1007/s002130050038. View

Coleman J, Lindsley D . Hippocampal electrical correlates of free behavior and behavior induced by stimualtion of two hypothalamic- hippocampal systems in the cat. Exp Neurol. 1975; 49(2):506-28. DOI: 10.1016/0014-4886(75)90105-3. View

Laxmi T, Stork O, Pape H . Generalisation of conditioned fear and its behavioural expression in mice. Behav Brain Res. 2003; 145(1-2):89-98. DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4328(03)00101-3. View

Roy V, Chapillon P . Further evidences that risk assessment and object exploration behaviours are useful to evaluate emotional reactivity in rodents. Behav Brain Res. 2004; 154(2):439-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2004.03.010. View

Krebs H, Weyers P, Macht M, Weijers H, Janke W . Scanning behavior of rats during eating under stressful noise. Physiol Behav. 1997; 62(1):151-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0031-9384(97)00026-7. View

Ennaceur A, Michalikova S, Van Rensburg R, Chazot P . Distinguishing anxiolysis and hyperactivity in an open space behavioral test. Behav Brain Res. 2009; 207(1):84-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.09.042. View

10.

Eilam D, Izhar R, Mort J . Threat detection: behavioral practices in animals and humans. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010; 35(4):999-1006. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.002. View

11.

McNaughton N, Corr P . A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004; 28(3):285-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.005. View

12.

Blanchard R, Blanchard D . Antipredator defensive behaviors in a visible burrow system. J Comp Psychol. 1989; 103(1):70-82. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.103.1.70. View

13.

Deakin J, Graeff F . 5-HT and mechanisms of defence. J Psychopharmacol. 2012; 5(4):305-15. DOI: 10.1177/026988119100500414. View

14.

Dielenberg R, Carrive P, McGregor I . The cardiovascular and behavioral response to cat odor in rats: unconditioned and conditioned effects. Brain Res. 2001; 897(1-2):228-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0006-8993(01)02227-2. View

15.

Simon P, Dupuis R, Costentin J . Thigmotaxis as an index of anxiety in mice. Influence of dopaminergic transmissions. Behav Brain Res. 1994; 61(1):59-64. DOI: 10.1016/0166-4328(94)90008-6. View

16.

Blanchard D, Blanchard R, Tom P, Rodgers R . Diazepam changes risk assessment in an anxiety/defense test battery. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1990; 101(4):511-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF02244230. View

17.

Cole J, Rodgers R . Ethological evaluation of the effects of acute and chronic buspirone treatment in the murine elevated plus-maze test: comparison with haloperidol. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1994; 114(2):288-96. DOI: 10.1007/BF02244851. View

18.

Choleris E, Thomas A, Kavaliers M, Prato F . A detailed ethological analysis of the mouse open field test: effects of diazepam, chlordiazepoxide and an extremely low frequency pulsed magnetic field. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2001; 25(3):235-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00011-2. View

19.

Balogh S, Radcliffe R, Logue S, Wehner J . Contextual and cued fear conditioning in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice: context discrimination and the effects of retention interval. Behav Neurosci. 2002; 116(6):947-57. DOI: 10.1037//0735-7044.116.6.947. View

20.

Paylor R, Tracy R, Wehner J, Rudy J . DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice differ in contextual fear but not auditory fear conditioning. Behav Neurosci. 1994; 108(4):810-7. DOI: 10.1037//0735-7044.108.4.810. View