The protocol for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.
5×FAD mice
odor
working memory capacity
Journal
Brain and behavior
ISSN: 2162-3279
Titre abrégé: Brain Behav
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101570837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
revised:
04
06
2022
received:
08
04
2022
accepted:
27
06
2022
pubmed:
19
7
2022
medline:
24
8
2022
entrez:
18
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Working memory capacity (WMC) is the ability to maintain information over a few seconds. Although it has been extensively studied in healthy subjects and neuropsychiatric patients, few tasks have been developed to measure such changes in rodents. Many procedures have been used to measure WM in rodents, including the radial arm maze, the WM version of the Morris swimming task, and various delayed matching and nonmatching-to-sample tasks. It should be noted, however, that the memory components assessed in these procedures do not include memory capacity. We developed an olfactory working memory capacity (OWMC) paradigm to assess the WMC of 3-month-old 5×FAD mice, a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The task is divided into five phases: context adaptation, digging training, rule learning for nonmatching to a single sample odor (NMSS), rule learning for nonmatching to multiple sample odors (NMMS), and capacity testing. In the NMSS rule-learning phase, there was no difference between wild-type (WT) mice and 5×FAD mice in the performance correct rate, correct option rate, and correct rejection rate. The WT mice and 5×FAD mice showed similar memory capacity in the NMMS rule-learning phase. After capacity test, we found that the WMC was significantly diminished in 5×FAD mice. As the memory load increased, 5×FAD mice also made significantly more errors than WT mice. The OWMC task, based on a nonmatch-to-sample rule, is a sensitive and robust behavioral assay that we validated as a reliable method for measuring WMC and exploring different components of memory in mice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Working memory capacity (WMC) is the ability to maintain information over a few seconds. Although it has been extensively studied in healthy subjects and neuropsychiatric patients, few tasks have been developed to measure such changes in rodents. Many procedures have been used to measure WM in rodents, including the radial arm maze, the WM version of the Morris swimming task, and various delayed matching and nonmatching-to-sample tasks. It should be noted, however, that the memory components assessed in these procedures do not include memory capacity.
METHODS
We developed an olfactory working memory capacity (OWMC) paradigm to assess the WMC of 3-month-old 5×FAD mice, a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The task is divided into five phases: context adaptation, digging training, rule learning for nonmatching to a single sample odor (NMSS), rule learning for nonmatching to multiple sample odors (NMMS), and capacity testing.
RESULTS
In the NMSS rule-learning phase, there was no difference between wild-type (WT) mice and 5×FAD mice in the performance correct rate, correct option rate, and correct rejection rate. The WT mice and 5×FAD mice showed similar memory capacity in the NMMS rule-learning phase. After capacity test, we found that the WMC was significantly diminished in 5×FAD mice. As the memory load increased, 5×FAD mice also made significantly more errors than WT mice.
CONCLUSION
The OWMC task, based on a nonmatch-to-sample rule, is a sensitive and robust behavioral assay that we validated as a reliable method for measuring WMC and exploring different components of memory in mice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35849713
doi: 10.1002/brb3.2703
pmc: PMC9392537
doi:
Substances chimiques
Flavin-Adenine Dinucleotide
146-14-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2703Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Nat Neurosci. 2000 May;3(5):509-15
pubmed: 10769393
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Dec;7(12):547-52
pubmed: 14643371
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003 Mar;132(1):71-92
pubmed: 12656298
Cortex. 2012 Apr;48(4):429-46
pubmed: 21237452
Nat Neurosci. 2002 May;5(5):458-62
pubmed: 11976705
Hippocampus. 2014 Jul;24(7):762-72
pubmed: 24596271
Neuropharmacology. 2007 Feb;52(2):634-45
pubmed: 17097694
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:167-202
pubmed: 11283309
J Neurosci. 2000 Apr 15;20(8):2964-77
pubmed: 10751449
Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Nov;10(11):487-93
pubmed: 17015030
Neurobiol Aging. 2009 Sep;30(9):1430-43
pubmed: 18242780
Brain Behav. 2022 Aug;12(8):e2703
pubmed: 35849713
Psychol Bull. 2016 Jul;142(7):758-99
pubmed: 26950009
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):391-400
pubmed: 23850263
J Neurosci. 2018 Aug 8;38(32):7020-7028
pubmed: 30089641
Transl Psychiatry. 2020 Dec 15;10(1):431
pubmed: 33319773
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 May 29;362(1481):761-72
pubmed: 17400538
Learn Motiv. 2013 Aug 1;44(3):143-158
pubmed: 23729864
Neuropsychology. 2007 Jul;21(4):458-69
pubmed: 17605579
Psychol Aging. 2002 Jun;17(2):299-320
pubmed: 12061414
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 5;108(27):11252-5
pubmed: 21690375
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Jun;67(6):570-7
pubmed: 20530006
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
pubmed: 13310704
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005 Apr;44(4):377-84
pubmed: 15782085
J Neurosci. 2014 Aug 27;34(35):11526-33
pubmed: 25164651
Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):614-21
pubmed: 17614870
Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun 1;57(11):1336-46
pubmed: 15950006
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016 Jul;17(7):438-49
pubmed: 27225070
Behav Neurosci. 2002 Apr;116(2):286-90
pubmed: 11996313
Hum Brain Mapp. 2019 Aug 15;40(12):3682-3689
pubmed: 31077487
Assessment. 2012 Mar;19(1):21-30
pubmed: 22156721
Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85
pubmed: 11515286
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2017 Oct;234(19):2871-2882
pubmed: 28710519
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2015 Feb 1;1:23-31
pubmed: 26719851
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Jul;14(7):317-24
pubmed: 20630350
Biol Psychiatry. 1997 Jan 1;41(1):43-9
pubmed: 8988794
Neuron. 2018 Oct 24;100(2):463-475
pubmed: 30359609
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2011 Jan;95(1):57-63
pubmed: 21074629
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2020 Apr;237(4):1233-1243
pubmed: 31953648
J Neurosci. 2018 Aug 8;38(32):7013-7019
pubmed: 30089640
Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):748-51
pubmed: 15085132
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012 Jun 20;13(7):491-505
pubmed: 22714020
Behav Res Methods. 2008 Feb;40(1):46-54
pubmed: 18411526
Eur J Neurosci. 2000 Dec;12(12):4505-14
pubmed: 11122361
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010 Feb;25(2):121-32
pubmed: 19672843
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017 Jul 25;40:603-627
pubmed: 28772102
Psychiatry Res. 2002 Jul 31;110(3):259-71
pubmed: 12127476
Nat Neurosci. 2014 Mar;17(3):347-56
pubmed: 24569831
Elife. 2019 Jul 10;8:
pubmed: 31290741
Nature. 2005 Nov 24;438(7067):500-3
pubmed: 16306992
Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:173-96
pubmed: 19035823
Chem Senses. 2016 Jun;41(5):433-40
pubmed: 26969629
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Nov;37(9 Pt B):2111-24
pubmed: 22464948