Le Quan-Son Eric, Hereford Daniel, Borkar Chandrashekhar D, Aldaco Zach, Klar Julia, Resendez Alexis, Fadok Jonathan P
Tulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Program in Neuroscience, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Elife. 2024 Dec 16;12:RP90414. doi: 10.7554/eLife.90414.
Defensive behavior changes based on threat intensity, proximity, and context of exposure, and learning about danger-predicting stimuli is critical for survival. However, most Pavlovian fear conditioning paradigms focus only on freezing behavior, obscuring the contributions of associative and non-associative mechanisms to dynamic defensive responses. To thoroughly investigate defensive ethograms, we subjected male and female adult C57BL/6 J mice to a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm that paired footshock with a serial compound stimulus (SCS) consisting of distinct tone and white noise (WN) stimulus periods. To investigate how associative and non-associative mechanisms affect defensive responses, we compared this paired SCS-footshock group with four control groups that were conditioned with either pseudorandom unpaired presentations of SCS and footshock, shock only, or reversed SCS presentations with inverted tone-WN order, with paired or unpaired presentations. On day 2 of conditioning, the paired group exhibited robust freezing during the tone period with switching to explosive jumping and darting behaviors during the WN period. Comparatively, the unpaired and both reverse SCS groups expressed less tone-induced freezing and rarely showed jumping or darting during WN. Following the second day of conditioning, we observed how defensive behavior changed over two extinction sessions. During extinction, the tone-induced freezing decreased in the paired group, and mice rapidly shifted from escape jumping during WN to a combination of freezing and darting. The unpaired, unpaired reverse, and shock-only groups displayed defensive tail rattling and darting during the SCS, with minimal freezing and jumping. Interestingly, the paired reverse group did not jump to WN, and tone-evoked freezing was resistant to extinction. These findings demonstrate that non-associative factors promote some defensive responsiveness, but associative factors are required for robust cue-induced freezing and high-intensity flight expression.
防御行为会根据威胁强度、接近程度和暴露情境而变化,了解危险预测刺激对于生存至关重要。然而,大多数巴甫洛夫式恐惧条件反射范式仅关注僵住行为,掩盖了联想和非联想机制对动态防御反应的作用。为了全面研究防御行为图谱,我们将成年C57BL/6 J雄性和雌性小鼠置于巴甫洛夫式条件反射范式中,将足部电击与由不同音调及白噪声(WN)刺激时段组成的序列复合刺激(SCS)配对。为了研究联想和非联想机制如何影响防御反应,我们将这个SCS与足部电击配对组与四个对照组进行比较,这四个对照组分别接受伪随机非配对呈现的SCS和足部电击、仅电击、或音调 - WN顺序颠倒的反向SCS呈现,呈现方式有配对或非配对。在条件反射的第2天,配对组在音调时段表现出强烈的僵住,而在WN时段则转换为爆发性跳跃和窜动行为。相比之下,非配对组和两个反向SCS组表现出较少的音调诱发僵住,并且在WN期间很少出现跳跃或窜动。在条件反射的第二天之后,我们观察了防御行为在两个消退阶段如何变化。在消退期间,配对组中音调诱发的僵住减少,并且小鼠迅速从WN期间的逃避跳跃转变为僵住和窜动的组合。非配对组、非配对反向组和仅电击组在SCS期间表现出防御性的尾巴摇晃和窜动,僵住和跳跃最少。有趣的是,配对反向组不会对WN跳跃,并且音调诱发的僵住对消退有抵抗力。这些发现表明,非联想因素促进了一些防御反应,但强烈的线索诱发僵住和高强度飞行表达需要联想因素。