Advertisement

Modeling of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Mice: Nonlinear Relationship with the Strength of the Traumatic Event

  • K. A. Toropova
  • K. V. AnokhinEmail author
Article
  • 3 Downloads

The neurophysiological mechanisms of the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in humans remain poorly understood and require experimental investigation in animal models. We report here studies of variation in the range of conditions for the acquisition of PTSD in a learned fear model in mice using electrocutaneous shocks (ECS) as the stressful event. Use of different ECS application parameters showed that the severity of fear-induced and behavioral sensitization has a nonlinear relationship with the intensity of the traumatizing event. The optimum parameters for acquisition of PTSD are three shocks each of current 1.5 mA and duration 10 sec. The critical parameter is the number of ECS applied. Increases in the strength or duration of the traumatizing event did not lead to more severe signs of PTSD. As the number of ECS increased further, the behavior of the mice stopped being homogeneous: some of the animals demonstrated marked PTSD-like behavior, while others showed no signs of PTSD at all. These results identify the effective conditions for acquisition of PTSD in a learned fear model in mice and the conditions for the occurrence of individual variability in the traumatizing event, points important for understanding the mechanisms forming PTSD.

Keywords

post-traumatic stress disorder stress psychological trauma animal models conditioned reflex fear memory sensitization anxiety individual differences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamec, R. E. and Shallow, T., “Lasting effects on rodent anxiety of a single exposure to a cat,” Physiol. Behav., 54, 101–109 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamec, R., Strasser, K., Blundell, J., et al., “Protein synthesis and the mechanisms of lasting change in anxiety induced by severe stress,” Behav. Brain Res., 167, 270–286 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berardi, A., Trezza, V., Palmery, M., et al., “An updated animal model capturing both the cognitive and emotional features of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),” Front. Behav. Neurosci., 8, 142–154 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borghans, B. and Homberg, J. R., “Animal models for posttraumatic stress disorder: an overview of what is used in research,” World, J. Psychiatry, 5, No. 4, 387–396 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breslau, N., Kessler, R. C., Chilcoat, H. D., et al., “Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: the 1996 Detroit Area Survey of Trauma,” Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 55, 626–632 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Careaga, M. B. L., Girardi, C. E. N., and Suchecki, D., “Understanding posttraumatic stress disorder through fear conditioning, extinction and reconsolidation,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 71, 48–57 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carola, V., D’Olimpio, F., Brunamonti, E., et al., “Evaluation of the elevated plus-maze and open-field tests for the assessment of anxiety-related behaviour in inbred mice,” Behav. Brain Res., 134, 49–57 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choleris, E., Thomas, A. W., Kavaliers, M., and Prato, F. S., “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., 25, 235–260 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, H. and Zohar, J., “An animal model of posttraumatic stress disorder: the use of cut-off behavioral criteria,” Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1032, 167–178 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, H., Kozlovsky, N., Alona, C., et al., “Animal model for PTSD: from clinical concept to translational research,” Neuropharmacology, 62, 715–724 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, H., Zohar, J., Matar, M. A., et al., “Setting apart the affected: the use of behavioral criteria in animal models of post-traumatic stress disorder,” Neuropsychopharmacology, 29, 1962–1970 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlhoff, M., Siegmund, A., Golub, Y., et al., “AKT/GSK-3beta/beta-catenin signalling within hippocampus and amygdala refl ects genetically determined differences in posttraumatic stress disorder like symptoms,” Neuroscience, 169, 1216–1226 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dvorkin, A., Szechtman, H., and Golani, I., “Knots: attractive places with high path tortuosity in mouse open field exploration,” PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, e1000638 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golub, Y., Kaltwasser, S. F., Mauch, C. P., et al., “Reduced hippocampus volume in the mouse model of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder,” J. Psychiatr. Res., 45, 650–659 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Golub, Y., Mauch, C. P., Dahlhoff, M., and Wotjak, C. T., “Consequences of extinction training on associative and non-associative fear in a mouse model of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),” Behav. Brain Res., 205, 544–549 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jovanovic, T. and Ressler, K. J., “How the neurocircuitry and genetics of fear inhibition may inform our understanding of PTSD,” Am. J. Psychiatry, 167, 648–662 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamprath, K. and Wotjak, C. T., “Nonassociative learning processes determine expression and extinction of conditioned fear in mice,” Learn. Mem., 11, 770–786 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kung, J.-C., Chen, T.-C., Shyu, B.-C., et al., “Anxiety- and depressive-like responses and c-fos activity in preproenkephalin knockout mice: oversensitivity hypothesis of enkephalin deficit-induced posttraumatic stress disorder,” J. Biomed. Sci., 17, 29 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehmann, H., Clark, B. J., and Whishaw, I. Q., “Similar development of cued and learned home bases in control and hippocampal-damaged rats in an open field exploratory task,” Hippocampus, 17, 370–380 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, S., Murakami, Y., Wang, M., et al., “The effects of chronic valproate and diazepam in a mouse model of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 85, 324–331 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liberzon, I. and Abelson, J. L., “Context processing and the neurobiology of post-traumatic stress disorder,” Neuron, 92, No. 1, 14–30 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liberzon, I., Khan, S., and Young, E., “Animal models of posttraumatic stress disorder,” in: Handbook of Stress and the Brain, T. Steckler et al. (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005), pp. 231–250.Google Scholar
  23. Lipkind, D., Sakov, A., Kafkafi , N., et al., “New replicable anxiety-related measures of wall vs. center behavior of mice in the open field,” J. Appl. Physiol., 97, 347–359 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lister, R. G., “The use of a plus-maze to measure anxiety in the mouse,” Psychopharmacology (Berlin), 92, 180–185 (1987).Google Scholar
  25. Mahan, A. L. and Ressler, K. J., “Fear conditioning, synaptic plasticity and the amygdala: implications for posttraumatic stress disorder,” Trends Neurosci., 35, 24–35 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murison, R. and Overmier, J. B., “Comparison of different animal models of stress reveals a non-monotonic effect,” Stress, 2, 227–230 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prut, L. and Belzung, C., “The open field as a paradigm to measure the effects of drugs on anxiety-like behaviors: a review,” Eur. J. Pharmacol., 463, 3–33 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Risbrough, V. B. and Stein, M. B., “Neuropharmacology special issue on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), current state of the art in clinical and preclinical PTSD research,” Neuropharmacology, 62, 539–541 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rybnikova, E. A., Mironova, V. I., Tyul’kova, E. I., and Samoilov, M. O., “The anxiolytic effect of mild hypobaric hypoxia in a model of posttraumatic stress disorder in rats,” Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat., 58, No. 4, 486–492 (2008).Google Scholar
  30. Rybnikova, E. A., Vorob’ev, M. G., and Samoilov, M. O., “Hypoxic postconditioning corrects impairments in the behavior of rats in a model of post-traumatic stress disorder,” Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat., 62, No. 3, 364 (2012).Google Scholar
  31. Sheynin, J. and Liberzon, I., “Circuit dysregulation and circuit-based treatments in posttraumatic stress disorder,” Neurosci. Lett., 649, 133–138 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siegmund, A. and Wotjak, C. T., “A mouse model of posttraumatic stress disorder that distinguishes between conditioned and sensitised fear,” J. Psychiatr. Res., 41, 848–860 (2007a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siegmund, A. and Wotjak, C. T., “Hyperarousal does not depend on trauma-related contextual memory in an animal model of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Physiol. Behav., 90, 103–107 (2007b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegmund, A. and Wotjak, C. T., “Toward an animal model of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1071, 324–334 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, N. B., Doran, J. M., Sippel, L. M., and Harpaz-Rotem, I., “Fear extinction and memory reconsolidation as critical components in behavioral treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and potential augmentation of these processes,” Neurosci. Lett., 649, 170–175 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stam, R., “PTSD and stress sensitisation: a tale of brain and body. Part 2: animal models,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 31, 558–584 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thoeringer, C. K., Henes, K., Eder, M., et al., “Consolidation of remote fear memories involves Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone (CRH) receptor type 1-mediated enhancement of AMPA receptor GluR1 signaling in the dentate gyrus,” Neuropsychopharmacology, 37, 787–796 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walf, A. A. and Frye, C. A., “The use of the elevated plus maze as an assay of anxiety-related behavior in rodents,” Nat. Protoc., 2, 322–328 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research Center Kurchatov InstituteMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Center for Neurosciences and Cognitive SciencesLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and NeurophysiologyRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Anokhin Research Institute of Normal PhysiologyMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations