Effects of different social experiences on emotional state in mice.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 09 2020
17 09 2020
Historique:
received:
14
02
2020
accepted:
25
08
2020
entrez:
18
9
2020
pubmed:
19
9
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A comprehensive understanding of animals' emotions can be achieved by combining cognitive, behavioural, and physiological measures. Applying such a multi-method approach, we here examined the emotional state of mice after they had made one of three different social experiences: either a mildly "adverse", a "beneficial", or a "neutral" experience. Using a recently established touchscreen paradigm, cognitive judgement bias was assessed twice, once before and once after the respective experience. Anxiety-like behaviour was examined using a standardised battery of behavioural tests and faecal corticosterone metabolite concentrations were measured. Surprisingly, only minor effects of the social experiences on the animals' cognitive judgement bias and no effects on anxiety-like behaviour and corticosterone metabolite levels were found. It might be speculated that the experiences provided were not strong enough to exert the expected impact on the animals' emotional state. Alternatively, the intensive training procedure necessary for cognitive judgement bias testing might have had a cognitive enrichment effect, potentially countering external influences. While further investigations are required to ascertain the specific causes underlying our findings, the present study adds essential empirical data to the so far scarce amount of studies combining cognitive, behavioural, and physiological measures of emotional state in mice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32943726
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71994-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-71994-9
pmc: PMC7498458
doi:
Substances chimiques
Corticosterone
W980KJ009P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15255Références
Boissy, A. et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol. Behav. 92(3), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003
pubmed: 17428510
Mendl, M., Burman, O. H. P. & Paul, E. S. An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277(1696), 2895–2904. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0303 (2010).
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303
De Waal, F. B. M. What is an animal emotion?. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1224, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05912.x (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05912.x
pubmed: 21486301
Paul, E. S., Harding, E. J. & Mendl, M. Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 29(3), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002
pubmed: 15820551
Koolhaas, J. M. et al. Stress revisited: a critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35(5), 1291–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003
pubmed: 21316391
Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., Parker, R. M. & Paul, E. S. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare. Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 118(3–4), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023
Harding, E. J., Paul, E. S. & Mendl, M. Cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427, 6972. https://doi.org/10.1038/427312a (2004).
doi: 10.1038/427312a
Roelofs, S., Boleij, H., Nordquist, R. E. & van der Staay, F. J. Making decisions under ambiguity: judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10, 119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119 (2016).
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119
pubmed: 27375454
pmcid: 4899464
Mathews, A. & MacLeod, C. Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional disorders. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 45(1), 25–50 (1994).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.000325
Mathews, A. & MacLeod, C. Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 1, 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916 (2005).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916
pubmed: 17716086
Matheson, S. M., Asher, L. & Bateson, M. Larger, enriched cages are associated with ‘optimistic’ response biases in captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109(2–4), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.007 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.007
Enkel, T. et al. Ambiguous-cue interpretation is biased under stress- and depression-like states in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 35(4), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.204 (2010).
doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.204
pubmed: 20043002
Jones, S. et al. Assessing animal affect: an automated and self-initiated judgement bias task based on natural investigative behaviour. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 12400 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30571-x
Hintze, S. et al. A cross-species judgement bias task: integrating active trial initiation into a spatial Go/No-go task. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 5104. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3
pubmed: 29572529
pmcid: 5865189
Bethell, E. J. A “how-to” guide for designing judgment bias studies to assess captive animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 18(sup1), 18–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2015.1075833 (2015).
doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075833
Brydges, N. M., Leach, M., Nicol, K., Wright, R. & Bateson, M. Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive bias in rats. Anim. Behav. 81(1), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.030 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.030
Papciak, J., Popik, P., Fuchs, E. & Rygula, R. Chronic psychosocial stress makes rats more “pessimistic” in the ambiguous-cue interpretation paradigm. Behav. Brain Res. 256, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.08.036 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.08.036
pubmed: 23993861
Richter, S. H. et al. A glass full of optimism: enrichment effects on cognitive bias in a rat model of depression. CABN 12(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0101-2 (2012).
doi: 10.3758/s13415-012-0101-2
pubmed: 22644760
Salmeto, A. L. et al. Cognitive bias in the chick anxiety-depression model. Brain Res. 1373, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.12.007 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.12.007
pubmed: 21156165
Bethell, E. J. & Koyama, N. F. Happy hamsters? Enrichment induces positive judgement bias for mildly (but not truly) ambiguous cues to reward and punishment in Mesocricetus auratus. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2(7), 140399. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140399 (2015).
doi: 10.1098/rsos.140399
pubmed: 26587255
pmcid: 4632568
Brydges, N. M., Hall, L., Nicolson, R., Holmes, M. C. & Hall, J. The effects of juvenile stress on anxiety, cognitive bias and decision making in adulthood: a rat model. PLoS ONE 7(10), e48143. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048143 (2012).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048143
pubmed: 23118942
pmcid: 3485359
Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Leterrier, C., Calandreau, L. & Boissy, A. Repeated exposure to positive events induces optimistic-like judgment and enhances fearfulness in chronically stressed sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 154, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.01.005 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.01.005
Malakoff, D. The rise of the mouse, biomedicine’s model mammal. Science 288(5464), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.288.5464.248 (2000).
doi: 10.1126/science.288.5464.248
pubmed: 10777401
Rosenthal, N. & Brown, S. The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models. Nat. Cell Biol. 9(9), 993. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb437 (2007).
doi: 10.1038/ncb437
pubmed: 17762889
Novak, J., Bailoo, J. D., Melotti, L. & Würbel, H. Effect of cage-induced stereotypies on measures of affective state and recurrent perseveration in CD-1 and C57BL/6 mice. PLoS ONE 11, 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153203 (2016).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153203
Novak, J. et al. Effects of stereotypic behaviour and chronic mild stress on judgement bias in laboratory mice. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 174, 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.004 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.004
Kloke, V. et al. Hope for the best or prepare for the worst? Towards a spatial cognitive bias test for mice. PLoS ONE 9(8), e105431. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105431 (2014).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105431
pubmed: 25137069
pmcid: 4138164
Krakenberg, V., von Kortzfleisch, V. T., Kaiser, S., Sachser, N. & Richter, S. H. Differential effects of serotonin transporter genotype on anxiety-like behavior and cognitive judgment bias in mice. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 13, 263. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00263 (2019).
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00263
pubmed: 31849623
pmcid: 6902087
Bailoo, J. D. et al. Effects of cage enrichment on behavior, welfare, and outcome variability in female mice. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 12, 232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00232 (2018).
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00232
pubmed: 30416435
pmcid: 6212514
Jansen, F. et al. Modulation of behavioural profile and stress response by 5-HTT genotype and social experience in adulthood. Behav. Brain Res. 207(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.09.033 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.09.033
pubmed: 19782704
Aikey, J. L., Nyby, J. G., Anmuth, D. M. & James, P. J. Testosterone rapidly reduces anxiety in male house mice (Mus musculus). Horm. Behav. 42(4), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1006/hbeh.2002.1838 (2002).
doi: 10.1006/hbeh.2002.1838
pubmed: 12488111
Mugford, R. A. & Nowell, N. W. Pheromones and their effect on aggression in mice. Nature 226(5249), 967 (1970).
doi: 10.1038/226967a0
Holy, T. E. & Guo, Z. Ultrasonic songs of male mice. PLoS Biol. 3(12), e386. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030386 (2005).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030386
pubmed: 16248680
pmcid: 1275525
Lahvis, G. P., Alleva, E. & Scattoni, M. L. Translating mouse vocalizations: prosody and frequency modulation. Genes Brain Behav. 10(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2010.00603.x (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2010.00603.x
pubmed: 20497235
pmcid: 2936813
Wang, H., Liang, S., Burgdorf, J., Wess, J. & Yeomans, J. Ultrasonic vocalizations induced by sex and amphetamine in M2, M4, M5 muscarinic and D2 dopamine receptor knockout mice. PLoS ONE 3(4), e1893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001893 (2008).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001893
pubmed: 18382674
pmcid: 2268741
Krakenberg, V. et al. Technology or ecology? New tools to assess cognitive judgement bias in mice. Behav. Brain Res. 362, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.01.021 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2019.01.021
pubmed: 30654122
Kappel, S., Hawkins, P. & Mendl, M. T. To group or not to group? Good practice for housing male laboratory mice. Animals 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120088 (2017).
doi: 10.3390/ani7120088
Melotti, L. et al. Can live with ‘em, can live without ‘em. Pair housed male C57BL/6J mice show low aggression and increasing sociopositive interactions with age, but can adapt to single housing if separated. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 214, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.03.010 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2019.03.010
Feige-Diller, J. et al. The effects of different feeding routines on welfare in laboratory mice. Front. Vet. Sci. 6, 479 (2020).
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00479
Navarro, J. F. & Francisco, J. An ethoexperimental analysis of the agonistic interactions in isolated male mice: comparison between OF.1 and NMRI strains. Psicothema 9(2), 333–336 (1997).
Kloke, V. et al. The winner and loser effect, serotonin transporter genotype, and the display of offensive aggression. Physiol. Behav. 103(5), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.04.021 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.04.021
pubmed: 21549735
Byers, S. L., Wiles, M. V., Dunn, S. L. & Taft, R. A. Mouse estrous cycle identification tool and images. PLoS ONE 7(4), e35538 (2012).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035538
McIlwain, K. L., Merriweather, M. Y., Yuva-Paylor, L. A. & Paylor, R. The use of behavioral test batteries: effects of training history. Physiol. Behav. 73(5), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(01)00528-5 (2001).
doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(01)00528-5
pubmed: 11566205
Voikar, V., Vasar, E. & Rauvala, H. Behavioral alterations induced by repeated testing in C57BL/6J and 129S2/Sv mice: implications for phenotyping screens. Genes Brain Behav. 3(1), 27–38 (2005).
doi: 10.1046/j.1601-183X.2003.0044.x
Touma, C., Sachser, N., Möstl, E. & Palme, R. Effects of sex and time of day on metabolism and excretion of corticosterone in urine and feces of mice. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 130(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-6480(02)00620-2 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0016-6480(02)00620-2
pubmed: 12606269
Touma, C., Palme, R. & Sachser, N. Analyzing corticosterone metabolites in fecal samples of mice. A noninvasive technique to monitor stress hormones. Horm. Behav. 45(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2003.07.002 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2003.07.002
pubmed: 14733887
Palme, R. Non-invasive measurement of glucocorticoids: advances and problems. Physiol. Behav. 199, 229–243 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.11.021
R. C. Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2018).
Gygax, L. The A to Z of statistics for testing cognitive judgement bias 12. Anim. Behav. 95, 59–69 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.06.013
Lecorps, B., Brent, R. L., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. & Weary, D. M. Pain-induced pessimism and anhedonia: evidence from a novel probability-based judgment bias test. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 13, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00054 (2019).
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00054
pubmed: 30949035
pmcid: 6435490
Düpjan, S., Ramp, C., Kanitz, E., Tuchscherer, A. & Puppe, B. A design for studies on cognitive bias in the domestic pig. J. Vet. Behav. 8(6), 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.05.007 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.05.007
Mallien, A. S. et al. Daily exposure to a touchscreen-paradigm and associated food restriction evokes an increase in adrenocortical and neural activity in mice. Horm. Behav. 81, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.03.009 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.03.009
pubmed: 27059527
Zebunke, M., Puppe, B. & Langbein, J. Effects of cognitive enrichment on behavioural and physiological reactions of pigs. Physiol. Behav. 118, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.005 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.005
pubmed: 23680428