Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Apr;126(2):249-57.
doi: 10.1037/a0027048. Epub 2012 Feb 6.

Comparison of the performance of DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice in transitive inference and foreground and background contextual fear conditioning

Jessica M André  1 , Kristy A Cordero, Thomas J Gould
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of the performance of DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice in transitive inference and foreground and background contextual fear conditioning

Jessica M André et al. Behav Neurosci. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

DBA/2 mice have altered hippocampal structure and perform poorly in several hippocampus-dependent contextual/spatial learning tasks. The performance of this strain in higher cognitive tasks is less studied. Transitive inference is a hippocampus-dependent task that requires an abstraction to be made from prior rules to form a new decision matrix; performance of DBA/2 mice in this task is unknown, whereas contextual fear conditioning is a hippocampus-dependent task in which DBA/2 mice have deficits. The present study compared DBA/2J and C57BL/6J inbred mice in two different contextual fear conditioning paradigms and transitive inference to test whether similar deficits are seen across these hippocampus-dependent tasks. For background fear conditioning, mice were trained with two paired presentations of an auditory conditioned stimulus (CS, 30 seconds, 85 dB white noise) paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US, 2 seconds, 0.57 mA footshock), the context was a continuous background CS. Mice were tested for contextual learning 24 hours later. Foreground fear conditioning differed in that no auditory CS was presented. For transitive inference, separate mice were trained to acquire a series of overlapping odor discrimination problems and tested with novel odor pairings that either did or did not require the use of transitive inference. DBA/2 mice performed significantly worse than the C57BL/6 in both foreground and background fear conditioning and transitive inference. These results demonstrate that the DBA/2 mice have deficits in higher-cognitive processes and suggest that similar substrates may underlie deficits in contextual learning and transitive inference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Performance in background (A) and foreground (B) contextual fear conditioning. In both cases the DBA/2 strain performed significantly poorer than the C57BL/6 strain. Asterisks represent significance between groups at p<0.05. Error bars represent ± the SEM.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Days to criterion. A) Days to acquire each phase shortened as time progressed. B) There was no significant difference between strains in total days to reach criteria. Error bars represent ± the standard error of the mean.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Performance on presented pairs during probe trials. There was a significant interaction between strain and pairing for percent correct. The DBA/2 strain performed better than the C57BL/6 strain when the pairing was B+C− and worse when the pairing was C+D−. Asterisks represent a significant main effect differences between strains. Furthermore, the C57BL/6 mice performed significantly worse on trials with pairing B+C− than trials with all other pairings, represented by the § symbol. The DBA/2 mice performed significantly better for trials with pairings B+C− and D+E− than ones with pairing C+D− and trials with pairing D+E− than ones with pairing A+B−. Within the DBA/2 strain, # represents a significant difference from D+E−; φ represents a significant difference from B+C−. All differences are at p<0.05. Error bars represent ± the standard error of the mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Performance on the novel pairs during probe trials. Performance was significantly different from chance for the C57BL/6 strain in both the novel transitive inference and control pairs but was only above chance for the DBA/2 strain in the novel control pair. DBA/2 strain performed significantly worse than the C57BL/6 strain in the novel transitive inference pair B vs D There were no differences between strains for the novel control pair A vs E. Error bars represent ± the standard error of the mean. Asterisks represent significance between groups at p<0.05. ‡ represents significantly different from chance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ammassari-Teule, Passino E, Restivo L, de Marsanich B. Fear conditioning in c57/bl/6 and dba/2 mice: Variability in nucleus accumbens function according to the strain predisposition to show contextual- or cue-based responding. The European journal of neuroscience. 2000;12(12):4467–4474. - PubMed
    1. Ammassari-Teule, Tozzi A, Rossi-Arnaud C, Save E, Thinus-Blanc C. Reactions to spatial and nonspatial change in two inbred strains of mice: Further evidence supporting the hippocampal dysfunction hypothesis in the dba:2 strain. Psychobiology. 1995;23:284–289.
    1. Anagnostaras SG, Gale GD, Fanselow MS. Hippocampus and contextual fear conditioning: Recent controversies and advances. Hippocampus. 2001;11(1):8–17. - PubMed
    1. André JM, Gulick D, Portugal GS, Gould TJ. Nicotine withdrawal disrupts both foreground and background contextual fear conditioning but not pre-pulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in c57bl/6 mice. Behav Brain Res. 2008;190(2):174–181. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bailey A, Metaxas A, Al-Hasani R, Keyworth HL, Forster DM, Kitchen I. Mouse strain differences in locomotor, sensitisation and rewarding effect of heroin; association with alterations in mop-r activation and dopamine transporter binding. The European journal of neuroscience. 2010;31(4):742–753. - PubMed

Publication types