The genetic architecture of behavioural responses to novelty in mice

Abstract

The genetic architectures of 12 behavioural variables measured in adult male mice placed in a novel environment were analysed in a replicated 4 x 4 diallel cross. The results were combined with those obtained in a classical cross involving two of the four strains. Based on the hypothesis of an evolutionary history of stabilising selection for mouse exploratory behaviour, we expected additive genetic effects and ambidirectional dominance. Such genetic architectures were actually found for those exploratory behaviours where epistatic effects were of minor importance. Similar findings emerged for some non-exploratory phenotypes. All behaviours analysed appeared to be polygenically controlled.

Role of a neuronal small non-messenger RNA: behavioural alterations in BC1 RNA-deleted mice

“…"Exploration is evoked by novel stimuli and consists of behavioural acts and postures that permit the collection of information about new objects and unfamiliar parts of the environment" [14]. On one hand, enhanced exploratory behaviour represents increased chances for animals to find life support supplies such as shelters, food, water, escape routes, etc.…”

Multiple behavioral anomalies in GluR2 mutant mice exhibiting enhanced LTP

“…For the novel arena [23], mice were placed singly in a plastic box (46×25× 15 cm) illuminated by three pairs of 40-W fluorescent light tubes from the ceiling, and their motor and posture patterns were video-recorded for a 5-min session and later analyzed. The frequency ( f ) and duration (d, relative to the session length) of spontaneous motor and posture patterns [15,16,23,56] appearing upon exposure to the test situation were measured using an event-recorder computer program [24]. The following elements were analyzed: leaning ( f ), leaning against the wall with one or both forepaws while standing on the hindlegs; rearing ( f ), standing upright on the hindlegs; passivity (d), remaining motionless; locomotion score, number of squares crossed were counted using a square grid (5× 5 cm); a cross was counted when the mouse entered a new square with both of its forepaws; grooming (d), stereotypical fur licking or face cleaning movements; object exploration ( f ), exhibiting typical whisker movements (sniffing) while holding the nose close to a novel object placed in the open field before the session.…”

Purkinje Cell Expression of a Mutant Allele ofSCA1in Transgenic Mice Leads to Disparate Effects on Motor Behaviors, Followed by a Progressive Cerebellar Dysfunction and Histological Alterations

“…The surface of the apparatus was cleaned with a 70% ethanol solution and air-dried between mice. Animal performances on the bar cross apparatus were videotaped and later manually scored for the following spontaneous motor behaviors as defined (Crusio and Van Abeelen, 1986;Crusio et al, 1989;Gerlai et al, 1993): Locomotion T ime, duration of motor activity; Passivit y, duration of inactivity; Turns, frequency of 180°turns on the wide bars; Cross Attempts, frequency of an animal's placing at least two feet onto the challenge bar and elongating its body in an attempt to cross; Slips, frequency of an animal having one or more legs unexpectedly slip off the wide bar or challenge bar; Sniff Up, frequency of pointing nose upward while making movements of nasal passages; Sniff Down, frequency of placing head below the platform while making movements of nasal passages; Falls, frequency of falling off the platform; Grooming T ime, duration of wipes, licks, combs, and scratches while the animal has assumed a sitting position with arched back; Full Cross, frequency of successf ully crossing the challenge bar; Half Cross, frequency of starting to cross the challenge bar but turning back before reaching the other side; Urination and Defecation, frequency of. Tests were performed on mice between 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M.…”