Suppr超能文献

两种用于小鼠耳鸣评估的行为测试方法的比较。

Comparison of two behavioral tests for tinnitus assessment in mice.

作者信息

Fabrizio-Stover Emily M, Nichols Grace, Corcoran Jamie, Jain Avni, Burghard Alice L, Lee Christopher M, Oliver Douglas L

机构信息

Department of Neuroscience, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, United States.

出版信息

Front Behav Neurosci. 2022 Oct 10;16:995422. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.995422. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Animal research focused on chronic tinnitus associated with noise-induced hearing loss can be expensive and time-consuming as a result of the behavioral training required. Although there exist a number of behavioral tests for tinnitus; there have been few formal direct comparisons of these tests. Here, we evaluated animals in two different tinnitus assessment methods. CBA/CaJ mice were trained in an operant conditioning, active avoidance (AA) test, and a reflexive, gap-induced pre-pulse inhibition of acoustic startle (GPIAS) test, or both. Tinnitus was induced in awake mice by unilateral continuous sound exposure using a 2-kHz- or octave-wide noise centered at 16 kHz and presented at 113- or 116-dB SPL. Tinnitus was assessed 8 weeks after sound overexposure. Most mice had evidence of tinnitus behavior in at least one of the two behaviors. Of the mice evaluated in AA, over half (55%) had tinnitus positive behavior. In GPIAS, fewer animals (13%) were positive than were identified using the AA test. Few mice were positive in both tests (10%), and only one was positive for tinnitus behavior at the same spectral frequency in both tests. When the association between tinnitus behavior and spontaneous activity recorded in the inferior colliculus was compared, animals with tinnitus behavior in AA exhibited increased spontaneous activity, while those positive in GPIAS did not. Thus, it appears that operant conditioning tests, like AA, maybe more reliable and accurate tests for tinnitus than reflexive tests.

摘要

由于所需的行为训练,针对与噪声性听力损失相关的慢性耳鸣的动物研究可能既昂贵又耗时。尽管存在多种用于耳鸣的行为测试;但对这些测试进行的正式直接比较却很少。在此,我们用两种不同的耳鸣评估方法对动物进行了评估。将CBA/CaJ小鼠训练用于操作性条件反射、主动回避(AA)测试以及反射性、间隙诱发的听觉惊吓前脉冲抑制(GPIAS)测试,或两者皆用。通过使用以16kHz为中心的2kHz或倍频程宽带噪声并以113或116dB SPL的强度对清醒小鼠进行单侧连续声音暴露来诱发耳鸣。在声音过度暴露8周后评估耳鸣情况。大多数小鼠在这两种行为中的至少一种中表现出耳鸣行为的迹象。在接受AA测试评估的小鼠中,超过一半(55%)有耳鸣阳性行为。在GPIAS测试中,阳性动物(13%)比使用AA测试确定的要少。很少有小鼠在两种测试中都呈阳性(10%),并且只有一只在两种测试中在相同频谱频率下表现出耳鸣行为阳性。当比较耳鸣行为与在下丘记录的自发活动之间的关联时,在AA测试中有耳鸣行为的动物表现出自发活动增加,而在GPIAS测试中呈阳性的动物则没有。因此,似乎像AA这样的操作性条件反射测试可能比反射性测试对耳鸣的测试更可靠、更准确。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3114/9588978/8b2a2029871a/fnbeh-16-995422-g0001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验