Structured evaluation of rodent behavioral tests used in drug discovery research

Abstract

A large variety of rodent behavioral tests are currently being used to evaluate traits such as sensory-motor function, social interactions, anxiety-like and depressive-like behavior, substance dependence and various forms of cognitive function. Most behavioral tests have an inherent complexity, and their use requires consideration of several aspects such as the source of motivation in the test, the interaction between experimenter and animal, sources of variability, the sensory modality required by the animal to solve the task as well as costs and required work effort. Of particular importance is a test’s validity because of its influence on the chance of successful translation of preclinical results to clinical settings. High validity may, however, have to be balanced against practical constraints and there are no behavioral tests with optimal characteristics. The design and development of new behavioral tests is therefore an ongoing effort and there are now well over one hundred tests described in the contemporary literature. Some of them are well established following extensive use, while others are novel and still unproven. The task of choosing a behavioral test for a particular project may therefore be daunting and the aim of the present review is to provide a structured way to evaluate rodent behavioral tests aimed at drug discovery research.

Adolescent binge ethanol exposure alters specific forebrain cholinergic cell populations and leads to selective functional deficits in the prefrontal cortex

“…It is possible that the null effects in both the Barnes Maze task and novel object recognition task could be due to prior learning experience modulating later learning. Carryover effects are seen in both spatial memory tasks and recognition tasks (McIlwain et al, 2001; Cook et al, 2002; Cross et al, 2012; Hånell and Marklund, 2014; Paylor et al, 2006). …”

The Modified Hole Board - Measuring Behavior, Cognition and Social Interaction in Mice and Rats

“…In contrast to most behavioral tests (e.g., Hånell & Marklund, 2014) 7 , an advantage of the mHB is that animals do not need to be food deprived in order to increase the motivation to solve the task. Additionally, social isolation can be circumvented during testing by placing group mates of the experimental animal in a (group-) compartment separated from the test compartment by a transparent perforated partition, allowing for visual, auditory and olfactory contact 8,9 .…”

Mad men, women and steroid cocktails: a review of the impact of sex and other factors on anabolic androgenic steroids effects on affective behaviors

“…Indeed, AAS have been shown to influence generalized and social anxiety in both human (Su et al 1993; Cooper et al 1996; Galligani et al 1996; Hall et al 2005; Pagonis et al 2006a,b; Kanayama et al 2008; Lundholm et al 2010) and non-human (Clark and Henderson 2003; Oberlander and Henderson 2012a) subjects. The expression of different forms of anxiety in animal models has been assessed by a variety of experimental paradigms including the elevated plus maze (EPM), the open field test, the acoustic startle response, the Vogel conflict test, shock-probe and other burying tests, and freezing behavior assays (Crawley 2000; Steimer 2011; Hånell and Marklund 2014). As noted above, there is a marked overlap with respect to brain regions and neurotransmitter signaling systems that contribute to the expression of anxiety and aggression, as well as the steroid sensitivity of those regions (Figure 2 and Section 2.1; Oberlander and Henderson, 2012a).…”