fear conditioning paradigms  (Agren Inc)

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Adolescent Alcohol Exposure Disrupts Astrocyte-Synaptic Structural And Functional Coupling In The Male Dorsal Hippocampus

doi: 10.1101/2025.10.14.682478

Figure Lengend Snippet: a. Schematic representation of intracranial injection of the astrocyte membrane-specific adeno-associated virus (AAV5.GFAP.hM3D(Gq).mCherry) in the dHipp on PND 26. Beginning at PND 30, animals received AIE or H 2 O intermittently through PND 45. Following 26 day forced abstinence period, animals received saline or clozapine-N-oxide (CNO, i.p. 2 mg/kg) to activate astrocytes. After 30 minutes, animals were assessed in a contextual fear conditioning paradigm. Animals were placed in context A and subjected to 3-foot shocks across a 10-minute test period on day 1. On day 2 and 3, animals were placed in context A for 12 min with no foot shocks. b. Representative images of the dHipp, DAPI (blue), hM3DGq (magenta), GFAP (green), and colocalization of GFAP+hM3DGq confirming astrocyte specificity of AAV. c. Representative images of DeepLabCut output of labeled body parts on the x-y axis of the context box. d. Quantification of freezing behavior in the CFC task (H 2 O+SAL (#) vs. AIE+SAL ($); p = 0.029-0.085; H 2 O+CNO (&) vs. AIE+CNO (@); p = 0.062-0.574 ). e-f . Freeze/dart behavior quantification from sessions collapsed across foot shocks from Day 1 of the CFC. g-h. Freeze/dart behavior quantification from Days 2 and 3 of the CFC. Analysis: Repeated measures Two-way ANOVA, n = 12 animals/treatment group across 2 separate cohorts. ( p < 0.05* p < 0.001**)

Article Snippet: Following the 26-day forced abstinence period, animals underwent a 3-day contextual fear conditioning (CFC) paradigm previously described using Med Associates operant chambers.

Techniques: Injection, Membrane, Virus, Saline, Labeling

Journal: Biomedicines

Article Title: Levo-Stepholidine as a Potential Cognitive Enhancer: Insights into Executive Function and Memory Improvements

doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12122680

Figure Lengend Snippet: Effects of l-SPD on the acquisition and storage of trace fear memory. ( A ) Scheme of the experimental procedure. ( B ) Freezing behavior of animals treated with l -SPD versus vehicle during trace fear conditioning. ( C ) Freezing behavior was examined 1 day and 8 days after conditioning. * p < 0.05, student’s t -test; n = 8–9.

Article Snippet: To address the impact of l -SPD on executive function and memory, we performed multiple experiments to investigate the effects of l -SPD on working memory using the delayed alternative task in T-maze (DAT) [ , ], illuminated its effect on response inhibition using the stop-signal task (SST) [ , ], and assessed the impact on learning and memory using the trace fear conditioning paradigm in Sprague-Dawley rats [ , ], as well as evaluated its effects on prefrontal glutamate receptor expression using western blot [ , ].

Techniques:

Journal: Experimental Animals

Article Title: A modified mouse model of perioperative neurocognitive disorders exacerbated by sleep fragmentation

doi: 10.1538/expanim.22-0053

Figure Lengend Snippet: Timelines of the experiments. (A) The timeline of laparotomy surgical modeling and behavioral testing of neurocognitive function, including the object-place recognition test (OPR), the open field test (OF), Barnes maze test (Barnes), and fear conditioning test (FC) in experiment 1. (B) The timeline of preoperative sleep fragmentation modeling and behavioral testing of neurocognitive function in experiment 2. (C) The timeline of preoperative sleep fragmentation modeling for HF-rTMS treatment and behavioral tests of neurocognitive function in experiment.

Article Snippet: Fear conditioning test: Mice were subjected to a contextual fear conditioning paradigm using the Ugo Basile Fear Conditioning System (Ugo Basile Srl, Gemonio, Italy), with slight modifications [ , ], The fear conditioning test consisted of habituation (on postoperative day 8), training (on postoperative day 9), and testing phases (on postoperative day 10).

Techniques:

Journal: Experimental Animals

Article Title: A modified mouse model of perioperative neurocognitive disorders exacerbated by sleep fragmentation

doi: 10.1538/expanim.22-0053

Figure Lengend Snippet: Age-dependent hippocampal damage after laparotomy. (A) Locomotor activity was measured by OF (one-way ANOVA, P =0.4843). (B) Spatial learning ability was measured by the latency during the training phase in the Barnes maze test (Sidak’s multiple comparisons test; P= 0.131, P= 0.031, P= 0.006**, and P= 0.009** for D1-D4, respectively, for 6w vs. 18m; P= 0.168, P= 0.248, P= 0.08, and P= 0.05 for D1-D4, respectively, for 6w vs. 15w). (C) Spatial memory performance was measured by the time in the target quadrant during the testing phase in the Barnes maze test (one-way ANOVA, P= 0.005**; post hoc Dunnett’s test, P= 0.774, P= 0.2531, P= 0.0578, and P= 0.0015** for 6w vs. 6m, 6w vs. 12m, 6w vs. 15m, and 6w vs. 18m, respectively). (D) Freezing time ratio on the fear conditioning test (FC) testing day (one-way ANOVA, P= 0.0006***; post hoc Dunnett’s test, P= 0.9976, P= 0.733, P= 0.4827, and P= 0.0004*** for 6w vs. 6m, 6w vs. 12m, 6w vs. 15m, and 6w vs. 18m, respectively). Data are presented as the mean ± SE, with n=8 per group.

Article Snippet: Fear conditioning test: Mice were subjected to a contextual fear conditioning paradigm using the Ugo Basile Fear Conditioning System (Ugo Basile Srl, Gemonio, Italy), with slight modifications [ , ], The fear conditioning test consisted of habituation (on postoperative day 8), training (on postoperative day 9), and testing phases (on postoperative day 10).

Techniques: Activity Assay

Journal: Experimental Animals

Article Title: A modified mouse model of perioperative neurocognitive disorders exacerbated by sleep fragmentation

doi: 10.1538/expanim.22-0053

Figure Lengend Snippet: Preoperative sleep fragmentation (SF) increased perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND)-induced hippocampal injury. A) Locomotor activity was measured by movement speed in the open field test (OF) (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.1908, P= 0.2115, and P= 0.4797 for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, and Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively). (B) Anxiety state was measured by center ratio in the OF (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.3393, P= 0.215, and P= 0.9099 for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, and Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively). (C) Spatial memory performance was measured by the difference index related to the time spent in the new location in the new position recognition test (OPR) (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.4872, P= 0.1046, and P= 0.007** for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, and Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively). (D) Spatial learning ability was measured by the latency during the training phase in the Barnes maze test ( P= 0.5437, P <0.0001****, and P= 0.059 for interaction, time, and treatment by two-way ANOVA, respectively; P= 0.5437, P <0.0001****, and P= 0.059 for interaction, time, and treatment by two-way ANOVA, respectively; P= 0.0091**, P= 0.0112*, P= 0.8056, and P= 0.1948 for No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF in D1–D4 by post hoc Dunnett’s test, respectively). (E) Spatial memory was measured by the time spent in the target quadrant (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.9766, P= 0.2994, and P= 0.0093** for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, and Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively). (F, G) The errors in explorations (Mann-Whitney test; P= 0.1717, P= 0.0656, and P= 0.0191* for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, and Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively) and latency of the first successful attempt to the target hole in the testing phase of the Barnes maze test (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.8956, P= 0.2635, and P= 0.0364* for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively). (H) Fear memory was measured by the freezing time ratio on the fear conditioning test (FC) testing day (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.8012, P= 0.8689, and P= 0.0355* for No Surgery-No SF vs. No Surgery-SF, No Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-No SF, and Surgery-No SF vs. Surgery-SF, respectively). All data are presented as the mean ± SE, with n=8 per group.

Article Snippet: Fear conditioning test: Mice were subjected to a contextual fear conditioning paradigm using the Ugo Basile Fear Conditioning System (Ugo Basile Srl, Gemonio, Italy), with slight modifications [ , ], The fear conditioning test consisted of habituation (on postoperative day 8), training (on postoperative day 9), and testing phases (on postoperative day 10).

Techniques: Activity Assay, MANN-WHITNEY

Journal: Experimental Animals

Article Title: A modified mouse model of perioperative neurocognitive disorders exacerbated by sleep fragmentation

doi: 10.1538/expanim.22-0053

Figure Lengend Snippet: Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on neurocognitive function in perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) mice. (A) Locomotor activity was measured by movement speed in the open field test (OF) (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.8752, P= 0.088, and P= 0.0504 for No Surgery/sleep fragmentation (SF)-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively). (B) Anxiety state was measured by center ratio in the OF (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.7453, P= 0.2306, and P= 0.6235 for No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively). (C) Spatial memory performance was measured by the difference index related to the time spent in the new location in OPR (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.6285, P= 0.0021**, and P= 0.0143* for No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively). (D) Spatial learning ability was measured by the latency during the training phase in the Barnes maze test (post hoc Dunnett’s test; P= 0.9786, P= 0.0076**, P= 0.0835, and P= 0.966 for D1–D4 for Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS). (E) Spatial memory was measured by the time spent in the target quadrant (unpaired Student’s t -test, P =0.2254, P= 0.0015**, and P= 0.0237* for No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively). (F, G) Errors in explorations (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.7201, P= 0.0049**, and P= 0.0069** for No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively) and latency of the first successful attempt to the target hole in the testing phase in the Barnes maze test (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.078, P= 0.0004***, and P= 0.0085** for No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively). (H) Fear memory was measured by freezing time ratio on the fear conditioning test (FC) testing day (unpaired Student’s t -test; P= 0.643, P= 0.0149*, and P= 0.0324* for No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. No Surgery/SF-TMS, No Surgery/SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-No TMS, and Surgery-SF-No TMS vs. Surgery-SF-TMS, respectively). All data are presented as the mean ± SE, with n=8 per group.

Article Snippet: Fear conditioning test: Mice were subjected to a contextual fear conditioning paradigm using the Ugo Basile Fear Conditioning System (Ugo Basile Srl, Gemonio, Italy), with slight modifications [ , ], The fear conditioning test consisted of habituation (on postoperative day 8), training (on postoperative day 9), and testing phases (on postoperative day 10).

Techniques: Activity Assay