Historical Foundations

Lindsey, J. Russell; Baker, Henry J.

doi:10.1016/b978-012074903-4/50004-2

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This notion is further supported by the fact that new-object reaction was observed in a Wistar strain descended from 4 pairs of albino rats brought to the Wistar Institute in 1906 [ 13 ], i.e., rats kept in laboratories for more than 100 years. For example, Wistar rats preferred pressing a lever to obtain food from a familiar container to eating food without any labor from a novel container [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Two strains of roof rats as effective models for assessing new-object reaction

Kiyokawa

Tanaka²,

Ishii

et al. 2017

The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild animals generally avoid even small and harmless novel objects and/or familiar objects moved to a novel position, which is termed “new-object reaction”. Although new-object reaction appears to be a biologically important characteristic for animals, little progress has been made in understanding the neural mechanisms underlying new-object reaction. One reason might be the lack of effective experimental animals. Two strains of roof rats (Sj and Og strains) were established from wild roof rats caught in Shinjuku, Tokyo and one of the Ogasawara Islands, respectively, by a Japanese pest control company. Based on the rat caregivers’ informal observations, we conducted behavioral and anatomical tests to assess the validity of Sj and Og strains for the analyses of new-object reaction. In Experiment 1, the Sj strain showed reduced food consumption compared with the Og strain when food was provided in a novel way, suggesting that the Sj strain had a stronger avoidance of novel objects compared with the Og strain. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the basolateral complex of the amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in experimental Sj rats had a larger percentage area compared with that of experimental Og rats, indicating these nuclei might be involved in the difference observed in avoidance of novel objects between the strains. Taken together, the present study suggests that Sj and Og strains are effective experimental animals for assessing new-object reaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Two strains of roof rats as effective models for assessing new-object reaction

Kiyokawa

Tanaka²,

Ishii

et al. 2017

The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different inbred strains of laboratory rodents originated from ancestors taken from different populations, subspecies and even continents, so one cannot assume that the distribution of trait values across different strains mirrors the distribution of trait values within any single natural population. In addition, many of those strains were subsequently subjected to strong artificial selection for a variety of different traits after they were brought into captivity (mice: Lyon & Searle, 1989;Atchley & Fitch, 1991;Petkov et al, 2004;rats: Thomas et al, 2003;Russell Lindsey & Baker, 2006).…”

Section: (A) Within-individual Versus Replicate-individual Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in behavioural plasticities

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in individual differences in animal behavioural plasticities has surged in recent years, but research in this area has been hampered by semantic confusion as different investigators use the same terms (e.g. plasticity, flexibility, responsiveness) to refer to different phenomena. The first goal of this review is to suggest a framework for categorizing the many different types of behavioural plasticities, describe examples of each, and indicate why using reversibility as a criterion for categorizing behavioural plasticities is problematic. This framework is then used to address a number of timely questions about individual differences in behavioural plasticities. One set of questions concerns the experimental designs that can be used to study individual differences in various types of behavioural plasticities. Although within-individual designs are the default option for empirical studies of many types of behavioural plasticities, in some situations (e.g. when experience at an early age affects the behaviour expressed at subsequent ages), 'replicate individual' designs can provide useful insights into individual differences in behavioural plasticities. To date, researchers using within-individual and replicate individual designs have documented individual differences in all of the major categories of behavioural plasticities described herein. Another important question is whether and how different types of behavioural plasticities are related to one another. Currently there is empirical evidence that many behavioural plasticities [e.g. contextual plasticity, learning rates, IIV (intra-individual variability), endogenous plasticities, ontogenetic plasticities) can themselves vary as a function of experiences earlier in life, that is, many types of behavioural plasticity are themselves developmentally plastic. These findings support the assumption that differences among individuals in prior experiences may contribute to individual differences in behavioural plasticities observed at a given age. Several authors have predicted correlations across individuals between different types of behavioural plasticities, i.e. that some individuals will be generally more plastic than others. However, empirical support for most of these predictions, including indirect evidence from studies of relationships between personality traits and plasticities, is currently sparse and equivocal. The final section of this review suggests how an appreciation of the similarities and differences between different types of behavioural plasticities may help theoreticians formulate testable models to explain the evolution of individual differences in behavioural plasticities and the evolutionary and ecological consequences of individual differences in behavioural plasticities.

show abstract

“…Laboratory rats are a domesticated form of wild rat and show approach behaviors, rather than avoidance behaviors, toward novel objects. Laboratory and wild rats are members of the same species, with the same binomial name and the ability to produce hybrids [4], even though the oldest strain of laboratory rat (Wistar strain) has been kept in laboratories for more than 100 years [30]. Previously, we conducted morphological analyses to identify candidate nuclei that might contribute to differences in avoidance behaviors towards novel objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel objects elicit greater activation in the basolateral complex of the amygdala of wild rats compared with laboratory rats

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild animals tend to avoid novel objects that do not elicit clear avoidance behaviors in domesticated animals. We previously found that the basolateral complex of the amygdala (BLA) and dorsal bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (dBNST) were larger in trapped wild rats compared with laboratory rats. Based on these findings, we hypothesized that the BLA and/or dBNST would be differentially activated when wild and laboratory rats showed different avoidance behaviors towards novel objects. In this study, we placed novel objects at one end of the home cage. We measured the time spent in that half of the cage and expressed the data as a percentage of the time spent in that region with no object placement. We found that this percentage was lower in the wild rats compared with the laboratory rats. These behavioral differences were accompanied by increased Fos expression in the BLA, but not in the dBNST, of the wild rats. These results suggest that wild rats show greater BLA activation compared with laboratory rats in response to novel objects. We also found increased Fos expression in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus, ventral BNST, and ventromedial hypothalamus, but not in the central amygdala of wild rats. Taken together, our data represent new information regarding differences in behavioral and neural responses towards novel objects in wild vs. laboratory rats.

show abstract

Historical Foundations

Cited by 31 publications

References 69 publications

Two strains of roof rats as effective models for assessing new-object reaction

Two strains of roof rats as effective models for assessing new-object reaction

Individual differences in behavioural plasticities

Novel objects elicit greater activation in the basolateral complex of the amygdala of wild rats compared with laboratory rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About