auditory fear conditioning  (Med Associates Inc)

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: A sensorimotor brain circuit for transforming aversive experiences into emotional states

doi: 10.64898/2026.01.15.699823

Figure Lengend Snippet: CnF-LA/B pathway instructs aversive memory formation. a ) Fear conditioning paradigm with laser inhibition during the peri-shock period (top) and viral/optogenetic strategy (bottom). b ) Optogenetic inactivation of CnF-LA/B projecting cell bodies reduces auditory fear memory formation. Top, acquisition. Bottom, memory retrieval (one-way ANOVA, F (2, 16) = 14.61, P =0.0002). c ) Optogenetic inhibition of CnF terminals in LA/B viral/optogenetic approach (top) and fluorophore labeled CnF terminals in LA/B (bottom). d ) Optogenetic inactivation of CnF terminals in LA/B reduces auditory fear memory formation. Top, acquisition. Bottom, memory retrieval (one-way ANOVA, F (2, 21) = 24.34, P <0.0001). e ) Conditioning paradigm for tone-laser stimulation of Cnf-LA/B pathway (top) viral/optogenetic strategy (bottom). f ) Pairing tone with optogenetic stimulation of CnF-LA/B pathway produces fear learning during the acquisition session (two-way ANOVA, F (2, 144) = 76.64, P <0.0001). Single trials on y-axis. g ) Increased conditioned freezing is maintained in ChR2 paired group at memory retrieval (one-way ANOVA, F (2, 18) = 8.471, P =0.0026). h ) Effect of optogenetic inhibition of CnF-to-LA/B pathway on escape behaviors. i ) Interpretative working model showing CnF-to-LA pathway receiving inputs from brain regions involved in aversive sensory processing and hierarchically organized defensive responding and, in turn, sending external-sensory and internal-motor information to LA/B to instruct associative emotional memory formation and enhance escape responding. ** P <0.01, *** P <0.001. Data represent mean ± SEM

Article Snippet: For all auditory fear conditioning in behavioral studies, animals were placed into a sound-isolating chamber (Med Associates) and received auditory CSs (74 dB, 5-kHz tone pips at 1 Hz with 250 ms on and 750 ms off for 20 s) and electric shock unconditioned stimuli (US) (1 sec, 0.7mA) which co-terminated with the CS.

Techniques: Inhibition, Labeling

Journal: Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience

Article Title: PTEN in somatostatin neurons regulates fear and anxiety and is required for inhibitory synaptic connectivity within central amygdala

doi: 10.3389/fncel.2025.1597131

Figure Lengend Snippet: Conditional knockout of PTEN from SOM neurons leads to elevated fear and anxiety phenotype. (a) Breeding strategy. (b) Experimental timeline for behavior (vertical dashes indicate days). (c) Both sets of mice interacted significantly more with social targets than with non-social targets (the empty cup) in the sociability stage (WT: n = 10, 115.6 s vs. 41.01 s, **** indicates Tukey’s test: p < 0.0001, KO: n = 12, 111.2 s vs. 54.65 s, **** indicates Tukey’s test: p < 0.0001). (d) SOM-PTEN-KO mice showed a higher preference for novel mice, compared to wild type mice, in the social novelty test (WT: n = 10, 78.14 s vs. 51.90 s, Tukey’s test: p = 0.2526, KO: n = 12, 110.0 s vs. 45.20 s, **** indicates Tukey’s test: p < 0.0001). (e) No significant difference was observed between wild type and knock out mice when comparing their social preference ratios. (f) SOM-PTEN-KO mice have reduced locomotion in the open field ( n = 10 WT and 13 KO, 32.53 m vs. 26.43 m, * indicates t -test: p = 0.0446). (g) SOM-PTEN-KO mice showed a trend toward less exploratory rearing in the open field ( n = 10 WT and 13 KO, 103.8 vs. 82.38, p = 0.0684). (h) Wild type and knock out mice show no difference in time exploring the center, edge, or corner zones of the open field. (i) SOM-PTEN-KO mice spent more time in the corners during the hole board test [two-way ANOVA for interaction: F (2,42) = 7.058, p = 0.0023, 286.8 s WT vs. 351.2 s KO, * indicates Sidak’s post-hoc test: p = 0.013]. (j) No differences observed in number or distribution of holes poked. (k) SOM-PTEN-KO mice spent less time in the light (174.9 s WT vs. 351.2 s KO, * indicates Sidak’s test: p = 0.0133) and more time in the dark (414.3 s WT vs. 477.0 s KO, * indicates Sidak’s test: p = 0.0053) compared to WT mice in the light/dark chamber. (l) In the Elevated-Plus Maze, knock out mice spent less time in the open arm and more time in the closed arm compared to wild type mice (open arm: 115.5 s WT vs. 93.8 s KO, closed arm: 378.6 s WT vs. 428.2 s KO, * indicates Sidak’s test: p = 0.0295). (m) Input/output curves reveal an increased startle response in SOM-PTEN-KO mice [ n = 10 WT and 13 KO mice, two-way ANOVA F (1,168) = 5.243, p = 0.0211]. (n) Normalized PPI shows no difference between wild type and knock out mice in sensory integration [ n = 10 WT and 13 KO mice, two-way ANOVA – PPI effect: F (5,120) = 4.436, p = 0.0010, genotype effect: F (1,120) = 1.289, p = 0.2585]. (o) Both genotypes readily acquire fear memory, but SOM-PTEN-KO mice show elevated levels of freezing during conditioning compared to their wild type littermates [ n = 10 WT and 13 KO mice, two-way ANOVA – conditioning effect: F (6,147) = 12.01, p = 0.0001, * indicates genotype effect: F (1,147) = 4.480, p = 0.0360]. (p) Both knock out and wild type mice can discriminate between CS+ and CS−, but SOM-PTEN-KO mice freeze more to the CS+ ( n = 10 WT and 13 KO mice, 57.17% vs. 68.91%, * indicates nested t -test: p = 0.0364).

Article Snippet: Differential auditory fear conditioning tests were conducted using a Med Associates (Fairfax, VT, USA) fear conditioning chamber (10” × 11.5” × 8.5”) inside a sound attenuating box (25” × 30” × 17”).

Techniques: Knock-Out