↓ Skip to main content

Effects of environmental and physiological covariates on sex differences in unconditioned and conditioned anxiety and fear in a large sample of genetically heterogeneous (N/Nih-HS) rats

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of environmental and physiological covariates on sex differences in unconditioned and conditioned anxiety and fear in a large sample of genetically heterogeneous (N/Nih-HS) rats
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-7-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina López-Aumatell, Esther Martínez-Membrives, Elia Vicens-Costa, Toni Cañete, Gloria Blázquez, Carme Mont-Cardona, Martina Johannesson, Jonathan Flint, Adolf Tobeña, Alberto Fernández-Teruel

Abstract

Physiological and environmental variables, or covariates, can account for an important portion of the variability observed in behavioural/physiological results from different laboratories even when using the same type of animals and phenotyping procedures. We present the results of a behavioural study with a sample of 1456 genetically heterogeneous N/Nih-HS rats, including males and females, which are part of a larger genome-wide fine-mapping QTL (Quantitative Trait Loci) study. N/Nih-HS rats have been derived from 8 inbred strains and provide very small distance between genetic recombinations, which makes them a unique tool for fine-mapping QTL studies. The behavioural test battery comprised the elevated zero-maze test for anxiety, novel-cage (open-field like) activity, two-way active avoidance acquisition (related to conditioned anxiety) and context-conditioned freezing (i.e. classically conditioned fear). Using factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) we aimed to analyse sex differences in anxiety and fear in this N/Nih-HS rat sample, as well as to assess the effects of (and interactions with) other independent factors, such as batch, season, coat colour and experimenter. Body weight was taken as a quantitative covariate and analysed by covariance analysis (ANCOVA). Obliquely-rotated factor analyses were also performed separately for each sex, in order to evaluate associations among the most relevant variables from each behavioural test and the common dimensions (i.e. factors) underlying the different behavioural responses. ANOVA analyses showed a consistent pattern of sex effects, with females showing less signs of anxiety and fear than males across all tests. There were also significant main effects of batch, season, colour and experimenter on almost all behavioural variables, as well as "sex × batch", "sex × season" and "sex × experimenter" interactions. Body weight showed significant effects in the ANCOVAs of most behavioural measures, but sex effects were still present in spite of (and after controlling for) these "body weight" effects. Factor analyses of relevant variables from each test showed a two-fold factor structure in both sexes, with the first factor mainly representing anxiety and conditioned fear in males, while in females the first factor was dominated by loadings of activity measures. Thus, besides showing consistent sex differences in anxiety-, fear- and activity-related responses in N/Nih-HS rats, the present study shows that females' behaviour is predominantly influenced by activity while males are more influenced by anxiety. Moreover, the results point out that, besides "sex" effects, physiological variables such as colour and body weight, and environmental factors as batch/season or "experimenter", have to be taken into account in both behavioural and quantitative genetic studies because of their demonstrated influences on phenotypic outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 7%
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 40 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 18%
Psychology 8 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2011.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#362
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,758
of 246,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.