TY - JOUR
T1 - Delay and trace fear conditioning in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice
T2 - Issues of measurement and performance
AU - Tipps, Megan E.
AU - Raybuck, Jonathan D.
AU - Buck, Kari J.
AU - Lattal, K. Matthew
PY - 2014/8
Y1 - 2014/8
N2 - Strain comparison studies have been critical to the identification of novel genetic and molecular mechanisms in learning and memory. However, even within a single learning paradigm, the behavioral data for the same strain can vary greatly, making it difficult to form meaningful conclusions at both the behavioral and cellular level. In fear conditioning, there is a high level of variability across reports, especially regarding responses to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Here, we compare C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using delay fear conditioning, trace fear conditioning, and a nonassociative condition. Our data highlight both the significant strain differences apparent in these fear conditioning paradigms and the significant differences in conditioning type within each strain. We then compare our data to an extensive literature review of delay and trace fear conditioning in these two strains. Finally, we apply a number of commonly used baseline normalization approaches to compare how they alter the reported differences. Our findings highlight three major sources of variability in the fear conditioning literature: CS duration, number of CS presentations, and data normalization to baseline measures.
AB - Strain comparison studies have been critical to the identification of novel genetic and molecular mechanisms in learning and memory. However, even within a single learning paradigm, the behavioral data for the same strain can vary greatly, making it difficult to form meaningful conclusions at both the behavioral and cellular level. In fear conditioning, there is a high level of variability across reports, especially regarding responses to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Here, we compare C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using delay fear conditioning, trace fear conditioning, and a nonassociative condition. Our data highlight both the significant strain differences apparent in these fear conditioning paradigms and the significant differences in conditioning type within each strain. We then compare our data to an extensive literature review of delay and trace fear conditioning in these two strains. Finally, we apply a number of commonly used baseline normalization approaches to compare how they alter the reported differences. Our findings highlight three major sources of variability in the fear conditioning literature: CS duration, number of CS presentations, and data normalization to baseline measures.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84906716880&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84906716880&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1101/lm.035261.114
DO - 10.1101/lm.035261.114
M3 - Review article
C2 - 25031364
AN - SCOPUS:84906716880
SN - 1072-0502
VL - 21
SP - 380
EP - 393
JO - Learning and Memory
JF - Learning and Memory
IS - 8
ER -