standard conditioning chamber  (Med Associates Inc)

Journal: The European Journal of Neuroscience

Article Title: Ventral Hippocampus Modulates Prefrontal Control of Background Contextual Fear After Cued Extinction

doi: 10.1111/ejn.70287

Figure Lengend Snippet: vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear conditioning and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]

Article Snippet: All training and test sessions were conducted in a standard conditioning chamber kept inside a sound‐attenuating cubicle (VCF‐007, Med Associates, USA).

Techniques: Expressing, Comparison, Control

Journal: iScience

Article Title: Melanocortin 4 receptor-expressing neurons in the lateral stripe of the striatum regulate affect and motor control

doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112456

Figure Lengend Snippet: MC4R-LSS neurons are activated by aversive foot shocks in a D1-independent manner (A) Timeline of experiments. (B) Representative picture of GCaMP8m-expression and fiber placement in the lateral stripe of the striatum (LSS) of an MC4R-cre mouse. Fiber tract and anterior commissure (aca) marked with dashed line; LSS marked with arrow. LV, lateral ventricle. Scale bar 200 μm. (C) GCaMP8m signal measured with fiber photometry from MC4R-LSS neurons shows activation of MC4R-LSS neurons in response to aversive shocks, but not to the onset of the predictive tone cue. No change in neural activity was seen in response to shock omission in the fear test on day 2. Mean and SEM from 6 mice, 6 trials per mouse. (D) Heatmap of the data shown in (C) but split out per trial showing that the neural response is similar across all trials. Each row in the heatmap represents the mean from 6 mice. (E) Dopamine measurements from the LSS during the same behavioral paradigm as in (C). Dopamine is released in the LSS in response to both the aversive foot shocks and their predictive tone cues. No clear change in dopamine release was seen in response to shock omission in the fear test on day 2. Mean and SEM from 7 mice, 6 trials per mouse. (F) Heatmap of the data shown in (E) but split out per trial showing that the tone-induced dopamine release develops during the session. Each row in the heatmap represents the mean from 7 mice. (G) iGluSnFR-measurements of glutamate release onto D1-expressing neurons in the LSS during fear conditioning. Glutamate is released onto D1-expressing neurons in response to the aversive foot shock. A small release can be seen in response to the tone onset. Mean and SEM from 10 mice, 6 trials per mouse. (H) Heatmap of the data shown in (G), but split out per trial, showing that the shock-induced glutamate release is similar across trials and that the tone-induced release is developed within the session. Each row in the heatmap represents the mean from 10 mice. (I) Timeline of the crossover experiment testing if shock-induced activity of MC4R-LSS neurons is D1-dependent. (J) Group mean peri-event traces (± SEM) from the experiment shows a robust increase in neural activity in response to the foot shock after both saline-injection and pretreatment with the D1-antagonist SCH23390 (0.2 mg/kg; n = 7). (K) Mean peak size during the shock for each animal showing that SCH23390 does not affect the shock-induced neural response ( n = 7, paired two-tailed t-test). (L) Analysis of the inactivity time during the sessions showing that mice spend significantly more time inactive after SCH23390 injection compared to saline injection ( n = 11, paired two-tailed t-test). ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Article Snippet: Standard mouse operant conditioning chamber , Med Associates , ENV-307W.

Techniques: Expressing, Activation Assay, Activity Assay, Saline, Injection, Two Tailed Test

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Cognitive effects of early life exposure to PCBs: Sex-specific behavioral, hormonal and neuromolecular mechanisms involving the brain dopamine system

doi: 10.1101/2024.09.13.612971

Figure Lengend Snippet: Orienting response (OR) and foodcup (FC) scores over Pavlovian conditioning, N = 20/sex/treatment. A. Mean OR scores over conditioning in CS1 and CS2 +/- SEM. In both female (left panel) and male rats (right panel), OR scores were higher at the end of conditioning (block 8) in CS1 compared to CS2 ( p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). B. Mean FC scores over conditioning in CS1 and CS2 +/- SEM. In both sexes, FC scores were higher at the end of conditioning (block 8) in CS2 compared to CS1 ( p < 0.001 for both). C. Mean CS1 OR scores over conditioning +/- SEM. In both sexes, OR scores were higher in block 8, the end of conditioning, compared to the start of conditioning at block 2 ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). There were no effects of treatment group. D. Mean CS2 FC scores over conditioning +/- SEM. In both sexes, FC scores were higher at the end of conditioning compared to the beginning ( p < 0.001 for both). There was no effect of treatment group.

Article Snippet: Pavlovian light-food conditioning and attentional set-shifting were performed in standard conditioning chambers with dimensions of 30.5 cm W, 25.5 cm L, and 30.5 cm H (Coulbourn Instruments, Whitehall, PA).

Techniques: Blocking Assay