Advertisement

The Effects of Nucleus Basalis Lesions in the Rat on One Way Passive and Active Avoidance, Two Way Avoidance, and Lashly III Maze Learning: An Animal Model for SDAT

  • Paschal N. Strong
  • Gary W. Arendash
Part of the Advances in Behavioral Biology book series (ABBI, volume 36)

Abstract

The development of a useful animal model for senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type (SDAT) entails a number of considerations. Among them are the following:
  1. 1.
    The choice of an appropriate organism. In choosing a candidate organism the following issues should be addressed.
    1. A.

      Are there well established neurological homologies between the model’s CNS and the human CNS?

       
    2. B.

      Is the model organism’s behavior well enough studied and described so that pathologies in behavior due to disease or lesions have an adequate research base for comparison to normal behavior?

       
    3. C.

      Is the organism’s behavior homologous to a wide variety of human behavior?

       
    4. D.

      Is it practical and cost efficient to use a given organism?

       
     
  2. 2.
    Once the organism has been selected, the choice of the behaviors to be studied must have a rational basis. Although this seems obvious, there are subtle nuances often overlooked. When an investigator decides that one way passive avoidance would be a good test for memory function many questions must be answered, such as:
    1. a.

      Number of pre-shock trials

       
    2. b.

      Number of shock trials

       
    3. c.

      Intensity of shock

       
    4. d.

      Number of spacing of post shock trials

       
    Variations in these parameters can lead to a wide variety of interpretations of findings. Furthermore, analysis of the data is often simplistic (such as only measuring latency of entering the shock chamber in one way passive avoidance) when a more sophisticated description and analysis of behavior would lead to more insights into the behavioral deficit. One of the goals of the research to be reported on in this chapter was to achieve a finer analysis of the avoidance behavior often used in research in Alzheimer’s disease using various animal models.
     
  3. 3.

    Another important decision is the use of inter-subject designs as opposed to intra-subject designs. By this we mean using different animals for each behavior investigated (inter-subject) or exposing each animal to a wide variety of tasks (intra-subject). While the former has the appeal of noncontamination of one behavior by previous experiences (use of the so called naive subject) it suffers in generalizing to human behavior since humans, and all higher organisms, have a rich variety of experiences against which pathological changes must be assessed. Furthermore, intra-subject designs are more efficient because more information is obtained per subject. Balanced against the above advantages of the intra-subject design is the necessity of determining the order of behaviors to be investigated or the controlling of them through counterbalancing procedures.

     

Keywords

Passive Avoidance Basal Forebrain Active Avoidance Escape Latency Lesion Group 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lockard, R.B. (1968) The albino rat: A defensible choice or a bad habit? American Psychologist 23: 734–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beach, F.A. (1950). The snark was a boojum. American psychologist 5: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boice, R. (1973) Domestication. Psychological Bulletin 80: 215230.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosser, M., Garrett, N., Johnson, A., Mountjoy, C., Ruth, M., and Iverson, I. (1982) A post-mortem study of the cholinergic and GABA systems in senile dementia. Brain 105: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowen, D., Sims, N., Benton, J., Curzon, G., Davison, A., Neary, D., and Thomas, D. (1981) Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: A cautionary Note. New England Jsiprnal of Medicine 305: 1016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whitehouse, P., Price, D., Struble, R., Clark, A., Coyle, J., and Delong, M. (1982) Alzheimer’s disease and senile dementia: Loss of neurons in the basal forebrain. Science 215: 1237–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pearson, R., Sofroniew, M., Cuello, A., Powel, T., Eckenstein, F., Esiri, M., and Wilocock, G. (1983) Persistence of cholinergic neurons in the basal nucleus in a brain with senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type demonstrated by immunohistochemistry. Brain Res. 289: 375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnston, M., McKinney, M., and Coyle, J. (1979) Evidence for a cholinergic projection to neocortex from neurons in basal forebrain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 76: 5392–5396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehman, J., Nagy, J., Atmadja, S., and Fibiger, H.C. (1980). The nucleus basalis magnocellularis: The origins of a cholinergic projection to the neocortex of the rat. Neurosciences 5: 1161–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fibiger, H.C. (1982) The organization and some projections of cholinergic neurons of the mammalian forebrain. Brain Research Reviews 4: 327–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hepler, D.J., Olton, D.S., Wenk, G.L., and Coyle, J.T. (1985) Lesions ion the nucleus basalis magnocellularis and medial septal area of rats produce qualitatively similar memory impairments. Journal of Neuroscience 5: 866–873.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunnett, S., Low, W., Iverson, S., Stenevi, U., and Bjorkland, A. (1982) Septal transplants restore maze learning in rats with fimbria-fornix lesions Brain Research 251: 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berman, R.F., Crosland, R.D., Jenden, D.J., and Altman, H.J. (1988). Persisting behavioral and neurochemical deficits in rats following lesions of the basal forebrain pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 29: 581–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman, E., Lerer, B., and Kuster, J. (1983) Loss of cholinergic neurons in the rat neocortex produces deficits in passive avoidance learning. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 19: 309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flicker, C., Dean, R.L., Watkins, D.L., Fisher, S.K., and Bartus, R.T. (1983) Behavioral and neurochemical effects following neuro-taxic lesions of a major cholinergic input to the cerebral cortex in the rat. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 18: 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lo Conte, G., Bartolini, L., Casamenti, F., Marconcini-Pepeu, I., and Pepeu, G. (1982) Lesions of cholinergic forebrain nuclei: Changes in avoidance behavior and scopolamine actions. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 17: 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Araki, H., Lichiyama, Y., Kawashima, K., and Aihara, H. (1986) Impairment in memory and changes in neurotransmitters induced by basal forebrain lesions in rats.,Tappan Journal of Pharmacology41: 497–504.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miyamoto, M., Shintani, M., Nagaoka, A., and Nagawa, Y. (1985) Lesioning of the rat basal forebrain leads to memory impairments in passive and active avoidance tasks. Brain Research 328: 97104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Issacson, R.L. and Wicklegrn, W.O. (1962) Hippocampal ablation and passive avoidance. Science 138: 1104–1106.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blanchard, R.J. and Blanchard, D.C. (1972). Effects of hippocampal lesions on the rat’s reaction to a cat.,Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 78: 77–82.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papsdorf, J.D. and Woodruff, M. (1971) Effects of bilateral hippocampectomies on the rabbit’s acquisition of shuttlebox and passive avoidance responses Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psycholoan 73: 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Issacson, R.L., Douglas, R.J., and Moore, R.Y. (1961) The effect of radical hippocampal ablation on acquisition of avoidance responses. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psvcholoci 54: 625–628.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olton, D.C. and Issacson, R.L. (1968) Hippocampal lesions and active avoidance. Physiology and Behavior 3: 719–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jackson, W.J. and Strong, P.N. (1969) Differential effect of hippocampal lesions upon sequential tasks and maze learning by the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 68: 442–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arendash, G., Millard, W., Dunn, A., and Meyer, E. (1987). Long term neuropathological and neurochemical effects of nucleus basalis lesions in the rat. Science 238: 952–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arendash, G., Strong, P., and Mouton, P. (1985) Intercerebral transplants of cholinergic neurons in a new animal model for Alzheimer’s disease. In: Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type, (eds. Hutton, J. and Kenny, A.) Alan R. Liss, Inc. New York, pp 351–376.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olton, D.S. (1983) The use of animal models to evaluate the effects of neurotoxins on cognitive processes. Behavioral Toxicology and Teratology 5: 635–640.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paschal N. Strong
    • 1
  • Gary W. Arendash
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations