Influence of circadian phase and test illumination on pre-clinical models of anxiety
Introduction
Pre-clinical models of anxiety have failed to provide consistent profiles for established and novel anxiolytic agents. For example, the widely used elevated plus-maze test (EPM) has provided contrasting profiles for serotonergic (5-HT), adrenoceptor and cholecystokinin (CCK) receptor ligands (for review, see Ref. [26]). Methodological variables such as gender, age and strain of subjects have been shown to influence behaviour on animal models and may go some way to explaining inconsistencies. For instance, sex differences have been reported in the social interaction test and the Vogel conflict test [17], while female subjects have been found less anxious than males [17], [25] on the EPM. Trullas and Skolnick [28] found that 70% of variability in plus-maze behaviours between mouse strains could be attributed to genetic factors. Strain differences have been reported for locomotor and thigmotactic behaviour in the open field arena [29] and for escape-related responses in a new model of extreme anxiety, the unstable elevated exposed plus-maze (UEEPM) [18]. Young rats have also shown less propensity to escape the UEEPM than adult rats [19]. In addition, procedural variables such as prior handling [1], individual housing, prior exposure to a novel arena [25] and illumination levels have been shown to affect baseline behaviour in pre-clinical models, hence creating further potentially confounding methodological variables.
High lighting levels have been shown to suppress locomotion and rearing and increase thigmotaxis in the open field arena [29] and decrease exploration in the black/white test box [4]. In contrast, Griebel et al. [10] reported that rats exposed to the EPM under low illumination (centre square 100 lux, open arms 80 lux, closed arms 90 lux) entered open arms more, spent a greater proportion of the trial on the open arms and were generally more active than those tested under high illumination (centre square 230 lux, open arms 220 lux, closed arms 100 lux). Thus, bright light appeared to increase the aversiveness of the test situation. However, different research groups have found both pigmented [22] and albino [2], [7] rats' behaviour on the EPM is independent of light levels ranging from 9.5 lux to 900 lux. Interestingly, level of test illumination has been found to dramatically affect the profiles of serotonergic ligands on the EPM. An identical dose of 8-OH-DPAT has produced anxiolysis at high levels of illumination and anxiogenesis at low levels [12].
Recently, rodent circadian rhythmicity has been suggested as a possible source of variability in the EPM. Rodents display circadian rhythms of approximately 24 h in a range of physiological and behavioural measures including body temperature [30], corticosterone release [31], locomotor activity [9] and response to pain [20]. Cao and Rodgers [3] propose that circadian phase of testing may be responsible for the reported contrasting effects of the selective 5-HT1A antagonist LY 297996. The compound has produced anxiolysis in mice tested on the EPM during the mid-dark phase, but has been ineffective in mice tested during the mid-light phase. Results reported in abstract form show WAY 100635, a selective 5-HT1A antagonist, produces significantly different effects on extracellular levels of 5-HT depending on circadian phase of administration [11]. Microdialysis of the rat hippocampus found the compound had no effect on 5-HT levels during the light phase, yet levels rose to 350% of control values during the dark phase.
Although rats' behaviour on the EPM has been shown to vary at different times during the light phase [10], to date no research has compared baseline behaviour in each of the circadian phases on a variety of animal models of anxiety. The present study aimed to assess the validity of circadian factors as potential methodological confounds. Behavioural home cage monitoring of three subjects over a 24-h period provided an index of any diurnal/nocturnal variations of activity in a familiar environment. A further group of experimentally naive, untreated rats were then exposed to a battery of unconditioned behavioural tests (UEEPM, EPM, open field arena, holeboard) during their subjective light and dark phases. To determine whether any observed differences were a function of lighting conditions and thus independent of circadian phase, two levels of test illumination, subjective light and subjective dark, were employed.
Section snippets
Subjects
Animals were 80 male Sprague–Dawley rats (Harlan, UK) aged 10 weeks and weighing 345–400 g at the start of testing. Half were housed under a normal 12-h light cycle (lights on 07:00 hours, half-light 07:00–08:00 and 18:00–19:00 hours) and half under a reversed cycle (lights on 19:00 hours, half-light 07:00–08:00 and 18:00–19:00 hours). Light levels were approximately 297 lux (light), approximately 48 lux (half-light) and approximately 9 lux (dark). Rats were singly housed upon arrival at the
Home cage behavioural monitoring
Mean frequencies per hour of each behaviour (see Fig. 1) revealed that, with the exception of minimal displays of feeding, subjects performed no active behaviours at any of the 10 min sample points during the light period.
In contrast, all behaviours were apparent in the dark and half-light phases. Further analysis of behaviour during the dark and half-light periods revealed an increase in behaviour during the first hour of darkness, which continued until the first hour of the light phase. No
Effect of circadian phase of testing
None of the anxiety measures on the pre-clinical models used were sensitive to manipulation of circadian phase of testing. The ratios of open arm entries/open arm time on the EPM, the number of head dips on the holeboard and escape-related behaviour on the UEEPM did not significantly differ between dark and light circadian phases. Although time spent in the centre of the open field did not differ, the lack of an axiogenic-like effect resulting from manipulation of circadian phase is proposed
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a University College London Graduate School Research Scholarship and the Royal Society Robert and Joan Case Research Fellowship.
References (32)
- et al.
Illumination has no effect on rat's behaviour in the elevated plus-maze
Physiol Behav
(1996) - et al.
Exploration of mice in a black and white test box: validation as a model of anxiety
Pharmacol, Biochem Behav
(1989) - et al.
Ethopharmacological analysis of rat behaviour on the elevated plus-maze
Pharmacol, Biochem Behav
(1994) - et al.
Individual housing from rearing modifies the performance of young rats on the elevated plus-maze apparatus
Physiol Behav
(1996) - et al.
Effect of chronic mild stress on circadian rhythms in the locomotor activity in rats
Pharmacol, Biochem Behav
(1996) - et al.
Multiple serotonin mechanisms in animal models of anxiety: environmental, emotional and cognitive factors
Behav Brain Res
(1993) A review of the validity and variability of the elevated plus-maze as an animal model of anxiety
Pharmacol, Biochem Behav
(1996)- et al.
Sex differences in animal tests of anxiety
Physiol Behav
(1991) - et al.
Circadian rhythm of pain in male mice
Gen Pharmacol
(1998) - et al.
Validation of open: closed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rats
J Neurosci Methods
(1985)
Serotonin and the sleep/wake cycle: special emphasis on microdialysis studies
Prog Neurobiol
Influence of social isolation, gender, strain and prior novelty on the plus-maze behaviour in mice
Physiol Behav
Factor analysis of spatiotemporal and ethological measures in the murine elevated plus-maze test of anxiety
Pharmacol, Biochem Behav
Daily activity and body temperature rhythms do not change simultaneously with age in laboratory mice
Physiol Behav
Social isolation increases aggressive behaviour and alters the effects of diazepam in the rat social interaction test
Behav Brain Res
Handling of rats modifies behavioural effects of drugs in the elevated plus-maze test of anxiety
Eur J Pharmacol
Cited by (70)
Three methods of behavioural testing to measure anxiety – A review
2024, Behavioural ProcessesBehavioral comparison of the C57BL/6 inbred mouse strain and their CB6F1 siblings
2023, Behavioural ProcessesExploring the light/dark box test: Protocols and implications for neuroscience research
2023, Journal of Neuroscience MethodsOxidative stress and neuroinflammation in a rat model of co-morbid obesity and psychogenic stress
2021, Behavioural Brain Research