2019
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213755
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correction: Further investigation of phenotypes and confounding factors of progressive ratio performance and feeding behavior in the BACHD rat model of Huntington disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The impaired PR performance exhibited by the R6/1 mice, ahead of any motor deficits, further increases the face and construct validity of these animals as a means to explore HD motivational deficits (60). Impairments in motivation to earn reward have been reported in other HD rodent models including the BAC HD, z_Q175 KI and Hdh mouse strains (6165) and the BACHD rat (6668). Given that the R6/1 mouse is widely studied, particularly with respect to novel therapeutics, it offers a powerful platform, in combination with the PR task, to deliver novel insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this early onset HD symptom and to evaluate potential therapeutic avenues.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The impaired PR performance exhibited by the R6/1 mice, ahead of any motor deficits, further increases the face and construct validity of these animals as a means to explore HD motivational deficits (60). Impairments in motivation to earn reward have been reported in other HD rodent models including the BAC HD, z_Q175 KI and Hdh mouse strains (6165) and the BACHD rat (6668). Given that the R6/1 mouse is widely studied, particularly with respect to novel therapeutics, it offers a powerful platform, in combination with the PR task, to deliver novel insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this early onset HD symptom and to evaluate potential therapeutic avenues.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%