Standard diet and animal source influence hippocampal spatial reference learning and memory in congenic C57BL/6J mice.

birth location hippocampus microbiome spatial memory standard diet working memory

Journal

Research square
ISSN: 2693-5015
Titre abrégé: Res Sq
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101768035

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Jul 2024
Historique:
pubmed: 29 7 2024
medline: 29 7 2024
entrez: 29 7 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Assessing learning and memory has become critical to evaluate brain function in health, aging or neurological disease. The hippocampus is crucially involved in these processes as illustrated by H.M.'s remarkable case and by the well-established early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. Numerous studies have reported the impact of gut microbiota on hippocampal structure and function using pro-, pre- and antibiotics, diet manipulations, germ-free conditions or fecal transfer. However, most diet manipulations have relied on Western diet paradigms (high fat, high energy, high carbohydrates). Here, we compared the impact of two standard diets, 5K52 and 2918 (6% fat, 18% protein, 3.1kcal/g), and how they influenced hippocampal learning and memory in adult 6-month-old congenic C57BL/6J mice from two sources. Using a hippocampal-dependent task, we found that 5K52-fed mice performed consistently better than 2918-fed animals in the Barnes circular maze. These behavioral differences were accompanied with marked changes in microbiota, which correlated with spatial memory retention performance. We next tested whether 2918-induced alterations in behavior and microbiome could be rescued by 5K52 diet for 3 months. Changing the 2918 diet to 5K52 diet mid-life improved spatial learning and memory in mice. Shotgun sequencing and principal component analyses revealed significant differences at both phylum and species levels. Multivariate analyses identified In summary, these findings demonstrate the diverging effects of seemingly equivalent standard diets on hippocampal memory. Based on these results, we strongly recommend the mandatory inclusion of the diet and source of animals used in rodent behavioral studies.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Assessing learning and memory has become critical to evaluate brain function in health, aging or neurological disease. The hippocampus is crucially involved in these processes as illustrated by H.M.'s remarkable case and by the well-established early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. Numerous studies have reported the impact of gut microbiota on hippocampal structure and function using pro-, pre- and antibiotics, diet manipulations, germ-free conditions or fecal transfer. However, most diet manipulations have relied on Western diet paradigms (high fat, high energy, high carbohydrates). Here, we compared the impact of two standard diets, 5K52 and 2918 (6% fat, 18% protein, 3.1kcal/g), and how they influenced hippocampal learning and memory in adult 6-month-old congenic C57BL/6J mice from two sources.
Results UNASSIGNED
Using a hippocampal-dependent task, we found that 5K52-fed mice performed consistently better than 2918-fed animals in the Barnes circular maze. These behavioral differences were accompanied with marked changes in microbiota, which correlated with spatial memory retention performance. We next tested whether 2918-induced alterations in behavior and microbiome could be rescued by 5K52 diet for 3 months. Changing the 2918 diet to 5K52 diet mid-life improved spatial learning and memory in mice. Shotgun sequencing and principal component analyses revealed significant differences at both phylum and species levels. Multivariate analyses identified
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
In summary, these findings demonstrate the diverging effects of seemingly equivalent standard diets on hippocampal memory. Based on these results, we strongly recommend the mandatory inclusion of the diet and source of animals used in rodent behavioral studies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39070656
doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4582616/v1
pmc: PMC11276007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Preprint

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG077743
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : T32 NS105604
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : RF1 AG044342
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : RF1 AG070296
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R21 AG065693
Pays : United States

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

Gut Microbes. 2012 May-Jun;3(3):203-20
pubmed: 22572829
Crit Rev Microbiol. 2023 Mar;49(2):151-176
pubmed: 35272549
ISME J. 2012 Oct;6(10):1848-57
pubmed: 22495068
Behav Brain Res. 2007 Aug 22;182(1):57-66
pubmed: 17590450
Gut Microbes. 2023 Dec;15(2):2252764
pubmed: 37671803
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019 Nov;44(12):2054-2064
pubmed: 31207607
Science. 2023 Jan 13;379(6628):eadd1236
pubmed: 36634180
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2023 Jan 1;62(1):26-37
pubmed: 36755206
Behav Brain Res. 2023 Feb 13;438:114183
pubmed: 36404570
J Neurosci. 2023 Sep 13;43(37):6460-6475
pubmed: 37596052
Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Apr 1;77(7):607-15
pubmed: 25173628
Brain. 2023 Dec 1;146(12):4916-4934
pubmed: 37849234
Anaerobe. 2020 Feb;61:102138
pubmed: 31830598
Brain Behav Immun. 2024 May;118:408-422
pubmed: 38461956
Gut. 2020 Feb;69(2):283-294
pubmed: 31471351
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Jul 10;13:1224155
pubmed: 37492530
Front Behav Neurosci. 2017 Jan 30;11:9
pubmed: 28194099
Neuroscience. 2015 Aug 6;300:128-40
pubmed: 25982560
Microbiome. 2017 Jan 17;5(1):4
pubmed: 28095889
Gastroenterology. 2009 Nov;137(5):1716-24.e1-2
pubmed: 19706296
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023 Sep;152:105296
pubmed: 37380040
Ageing Res Rev. 2021 Sep;70:101397
pubmed: 34214643
Gut Microbes. 2021 Jan-Dec;13(1):1-20
pubmed: 33678110
FASEB J. 2009 Dec;23(12):4353-60
pubmed: 19667117
ISME J. 2012 Aug;6(8):1449-58
pubmed: 22437156
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2010 Apr;36(2):313-9
pubmed: 20384410
Cell. 2016 Dec 1;167(6):1469-1480.e12
pubmed: 27912057
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021 Jan 27;10:611014
pubmed: 33585279
Nutr Diabetes. 2020 Apr 22;10(1):12
pubmed: 32321934
Cell. 2018 Jul 12;174(2):497
pubmed: 30007420
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022 Apr 23;7(1):135
pubmed: 35461318
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May;99(5):1026-32
pubmed: 24522447
Microb Pathog. 2017 May;106:171-181
pubmed: 26875998
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Feb 04;11:663513
pubmed: 35186776
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2016 Jan;40(1):117-32
pubmed: 26323480

Auteurs

Damyan W Hart (DW)

University of Minnesota.

Mathew A Sherman (MA)

University of Minnesota.

Minwoo Kim (M)

University of Minnesota.

Ross Pelzel (R)

University of Minnesota.

Jennifer L Brown (JL)

University of Minnesota.

Sylvain E Lesné (SE)

University of Minnesota.

Classifications MeSH