2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41596-020-0382-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A standardized social preference protocol for measuring social deficits in mouse models of autism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
91
1
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
91
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, we did not detect any differences in social interaction using a modified 3-chamber social task, and even if some studies have showed an altered social interaction (Pen ˜agarikano et al, 2011(Pen ˜agarikano et al, , 2015Selimbeyoglu et al, 2017), others were not able to detect it (Scott et al, 2019). Additional studies combining different social task protocols to precisely detect which component of the social interaction is impaired in Cntnap2 KO mice, and at what precise stage of development, are warranted (as suggested in Rein et al, 2020). An additional caveat is that alterations in interneuronmediated inhibition for Cntnap2 KO mice were evaluated at a single adult epoch in development, and it is possible that these deficits could lead to additional homeostatic alterations in circuit function (Turrigiano, 2011;Howard et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 51%
“…In our study, we did not detect any differences in social interaction using a modified 3-chamber social task, and even if some studies have showed an altered social interaction (Pen ˜agarikano et al, 2011(Pen ˜agarikano et al, , 2015Selimbeyoglu et al, 2017), others were not able to detect it (Scott et al, 2019). Additional studies combining different social task protocols to precisely detect which component of the social interaction is impaired in Cntnap2 KO mice, and at what precise stage of development, are warranted (as suggested in Rein et al, 2020). An additional caveat is that alterations in interneuronmediated inhibition for Cntnap2 KO mice were evaluated at a single adult epoch in development, and it is possible that these deficits could lead to additional homeostatic alterations in circuit function (Turrigiano, 2011;Howard et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 51%
“…The three-chamber sociability test assesses anxiety and depression in the form of general sociability in rodent models of CNS disorders (Nadler et al, 2004;Kaidanovich-Beilin et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2013;Lopatina et al, 2014;Rein et al, 2020;Becker et al, 2021). Because rodents normally prefer to spend more time with another rodent (sociability), the threechamber test can help identify rodents with deficits in sociability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Repeated exposure to social defeat stress in rodents causes behavioral abnormalities marked by social avoidance, consummatory behaviors, and anxiety‐like phenotypes [ 53 ]. While one‐chamber SIT is widely used to classify the response to the CSDS as ‘susceptible’ and ‘resilient’ subpopulation [ 4 , 54 ], three‐chamber social approach test has advantages for the assessment of social behaviors [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ]. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, there is no report differentiating ‘susceptible’ and ‘resilient’ behavioral phenotypes induced by CSDS using three‐chamber social approach test.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We utilized the three-chamber social approach test to differentiate 'susceptible' and 'resilient' mice as the response to CSDS. Compared with one-chamber social interaction test that classically used for evaluating stress susceptibility, three-chamber social approach test has advantages for the assessment of social behaviors [54][55][56][57][58]. While the social interaction is evaluated by encountering time of the test C57 mouse to CD-1 mouse in one-chamber social interaction test [53], three-chamber social approach test assesses the preference of "novel target same strain mouse vs. inanimate object" [43,56].…”
Section: Accepted Articlementioning
confidence: 99%