Chemo Fog pp 138-146 | Cite as

Animal Models

  • Ellen A. Walker
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 678)


As clinical studies reveal that chemotherapeutic agents may impair several different cognitive domains in humans, the development of preclinical animal models is critical to assess the degree of chemotherapy-induced learning and memory deficits and to understand the underlying neural mechanisms. In this chapter, the effects of various cancer chemotherapeutic agents in rodents on sensory processing, conditioned taste aversion, conditioned emotional response, passive avoidance, spatial learning, cued memory, discrimination learning, delayed-matching-to-sample, novel-object recognition, electrophysiological recordings and autoshaping is reviewed. It appears at first glance that the effects of the cancer chemotherapy agents in these many different models are inconsistent. However, a literature is emerging that reveals subtle or unique changes in sensory processing, acquisition, consolidation and retrieval that are dose- and time-dependent. As more studies examine cancer chemotherapeutic agents alone and in combination during repeated treatment regimens, the animal models will become more predictive tools for the assessment of these impairments and the underlying neural mechanisms. The eventual goal is to collect enough data to enable physicians to make informed choices about therapeutic regimens for their patients and discover new avenues of alternative or complementary therapies that reduce or eliminate chemotherapy-induced cognitive deficits.


Passive Avoidance Auditory Brainstem Response Conditioned Taste Aversion Progressive Ratio Serial Reaction Time Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bower JE. Behavioral symptoms in patients with breast cancer and survivors. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(5):768–777.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahles TA, Saykin AJ. Candidate mechanisms for chemotherapy-induced cognitive changes. Nature Reviews Cancer 2007; 7(3):192–201.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietrich J, Han R, Yang Y et al. CNS progenitor cells and oligodendrocytes are targets of chemotherapeutic agents in vitro and in vivo. J Biol 2006; 5(7):22.21–22.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Squire LR. Memory systems of the brain: a brief history and current perspective. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2004; 82(3):171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen D, Wu CF, Shi B et al. Tamoxifen and toremifene cause impairment of learning and memory function in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2002; 71(1–2):269–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foley JJ, Raffa RB, Walker EA. Effects of chemotherapeutic agents 5-fluorouracil and methotrexate alone and combined in a mouse model of learning and memory. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2008; 199(4):527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winocur G, Vardy J, Binns MA et al. The effects of the anti-cancer drugs, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil, on cognitive function in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2006; 85(1):66–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hilkens PH, Verweij J, Stoter G et al. Peripheral neurotoxicity induced by docetaxel. Neurology 1996; 46(1):104–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    New PZ, Jackson CE, Rinaldi D et al. Peripheral neuropathy secondary to docetaxel (Taxotere). Neurology 1996; 46(1):108–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borzan J, LaGraize SC, Fuchs PN. Effect of chronic vincristine treatment on mechanical withdrawal response and prepulse inhibition in the rat. Neurosci Lett 2004; 364(2):110–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boyette-Davis JA, Fuchs PN. Differential effects of paclitaxel treatment on cognitive functioning and mechanical sensitivity. Neurosci Lett 2009; 453(3):170–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahn EJ, Zvonok AM, Thakur GA et al. Selective activation of cannabinoid CB2 receptors suppresses neuropathic nociception induced by treatment with the chemotherapeutic agent paclitaxel in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2008; 327(2):584–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gandal MJ, Ehrlichman RS, Rudnick ND et al. A novel electrophysiological model of chemotherapyinduced cognitive impairments in mice. Neuroscience 2008; 157(1):95–104.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Humes HD. Insights into ototoxicity. Analogies to nephrotoxicity. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999; 884:15–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trimmer EE, Zamble DB, Lippard SJ et al. Human testis-determining factor SRY binds to the major DNA adduct of cisplatin and a putative target sequence with comparable affinities. Biochemistry 1998; 37(1):352–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han R, Yang YM, Dietrich J et al. Systemic 5-fluorouracil treatment causes a syndrome of delayed myelin destruction in the central nervous system. J Biol 2008; 7(4):12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mullenix PJ, Kernan WJ, Schunior A et al. Interactions of steroid, methotrexate and radiation determine neurotoxicity in an animal model to study therapy for childhood leukemia. Pediatr Res 1994; 35(2):171–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seigers R, Schagen SB, Beerling W et al. Long-lasting suppression of hippocampal cell proliferation and impaired cognitive performance by methotrexate in the rat. Behav Brain Res 2008; 186(2):168–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Navari RM. Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2009; 10(4):629–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Riley AL, Freeman KB. Conditioned taste aversion: a database. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2004; 77(3):655–656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yanovski JA, Packer RJ, Levine JD et al. An animal model to detect the neuropsychological toxicity of anticancer agents. Med Pediatr Oncol 1989; 17(3):216–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stock HS, Rosellini RA, Abrahamsen GC et al. Methotrexate does not interfere with an appetitive Pavlovian conditioning task in Sprague-Dawley rats. Physiol Behav 1995; 58(5):969–973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hodos W. Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science 1961; 134:943–944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodos W, Kalman G. Effects of increment size and reinforcer volume on progressive ratio performance. J Exp Anal Behav 1963; 6:387–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richardson NR, Roberts DC. Progressive ratio schedules in drug self-administration studies in rats: a method to evaluate reinforcing efficacy. J Neurosci Methods 1996; 66(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reiriz AB, Reolon GK, Preissler T et al. Cancer chemotherapy and cognitive function in rodent models: memory impairment induced by cyclophosphamide in mice. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12(16):5000; author reply 5000–5001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen D, Wu CF, Shi B et al. Tamoxifen and toremifene impair retrieval, but not acquisition, of spatial information processing in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2002; 72(1–2):417–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brown PL, Jenkins HM. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav 1968; 11(1):1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manuel-Apolinar L, Meneses A. 8-OH-DPAT facilitated memory consolidation and increased hippocampal and cortical cAMP production. Behav Brain Res 2004; 148(1–2):179–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meneses A. A pharmacological analysis of an associative learning task: 5-HT(1) to 5-HT(7) receptor subtypes function on a pavlovian/instrumental autoshaped memory. Learn Mem 2003; 10(5):363–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oscos-Alvarado A, Camacho JL, Meneses A et al. The posttrial effect of amphetamine in memory and in cerebral protein amino acid incorporation in the rat. In: McGaugh JL, ed. Contemporary psychology: Biological processes and theoretical issues. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science, 1985; 123–129.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vanover KE, Barrett JE. An automated learning and memory model in mice: pharmacological and behavioral evaluation of an autoshaped response. Behav Pharmacol 1998; 9(3):273–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Overton DA. Experimental methods for the study of state-dependent learning. Fed Proc 1974; 33(7):1800–1813.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Madhyastha S, Somayaji SN, Rao MS et al. Hippocampal brain amines in methotrexate-induced learning and memory deficit. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2002; 80(11):1076–1084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McDonald RM, Ergis A, Winocur G. Functional dissociation of brain regions in learning and memory— evidence for multiple systems. In: Foster JK, Jelicic M, eds. Memory: systems, process or function? New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; 66–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Macleod JE, DeLeo JA, Hickey WF et al. Cancer chemotherapy impairs contextual but not cue-specific fear memory. Behav Brain Res 2007; 181(1):168–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee GD, Longo DL, Wang Y et al. Transient improvement in cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in rats following cancer chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12(1):198–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Inagaki M, Yoshikawa E, Matsuoka Y et al. Smaller regional volumes of brain gray and white matter demonstrated in breast cancer survivors exposed to adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2007; 109(1):146–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saykin AJ, Wishart HA. Mild cognitive impairment: conceptual issues and structural and functional brain correlates. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry 2003; 8(1):12–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Silverman DH, Dy CJ, Castellon SA et al. Altered frontocortical, cerebellar and basal ganglia activity in adjuvant-treated breast cancer survivors 5–10 years after chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 103(3):303–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mignone RG, Weber ET. Potent inhibition of cell proliferation in the hippocampal dentate gyrus of mice by the chemotherapeutic drug thioTEPA. Brain Res 2006; 1111(1):26–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Audesirk T, Cabell L, Kern M et al. beta-estradiol influences differentiation of hippocampal neurons in vitro through an estrogen receptor-mediated process. Neuroscience 2003; 121(4):927–934.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen A. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Temple University School of PharmacyPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations