Scoring Learning and Memory in Developing Rodents

Igor Branchi1, Laura Ricceri1

1 Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome
Publication Name:  Current Protocols in Toxicology
Unit Number:  Unit 13.11
DOI:  10.1002/0471140856.tx1311s27
Online Posting Date:  March, 2006
GO TO THE FULL TEXT: PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Abstract

Learning and memory abilities can be reliably measured in rodents starting from very early phases of postnatal development. In particular, in the study of learning and memory in periweanling or adolescent (from around postnatal day 20 to 50) mice or rats, two experimental protocols are appropriate for a reliable characterization of cognitive ability development: the water maze and the spatial open‐field with objects. These experimental protocols have been developed to study the behavior of adult rodents, but are easily adapted to the peculiar physiological and behavioral responses of immature animals by applying selected modifications to both test apparatuses as well as protocols. It is worth noting that these two experimental protocols have been proven to be complementary because they provide different information on possible cognitive deficits; thus, use of both is recommended for an exhaustive behavioral characterization.

Keywords: water maze; spatial open‐field with objects; adolescence; preweanling; postweanling

     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Table of Contents

  • Basic Protocol 1: Water Maze Test of Learning and Memory in Developing Rodents
  • Support Protocol 1: Scoring Parameters for the Water Maze Test
  • Basic Protocol 2: Spatial Open‐Field with Objects Test of Learning and Memory in Developing Rodents
  • Support Protocol 2: Scoring Parameters for the Spatial Open‐Field with Objects Test
  • Commentary
  • Literature Cited
  • Figures
     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Materials

Basic Protocol 1: Water Maze Test of Learning and Memory in Developing Rodents

  Materials
  • Mice or rats (3‐, 4‐, or 7‐week‐old juveniles and 3‐month‐old adults; ∼12 animals per experimental group)
  • Balance accurate to 0.1 g
  • Videocamera
  • Computer with video‐tracking software (e.g., Ethovision, http://www.noldus.com; Smart, http://www.panlab‐sl.com; VideoMot2, http://www.tse‐systems.com)
  • Water maze apparatus: plastic circular pool with movable plastic platform (see Fig. and protocol 1 Introduction for size considerations)
  • Experimental room with visual cues (e.g., posters)
  • Holding cages (∼14 × 30 × 12–cm)
  • Opaque cup (approximate size: 15‐cm height, 15‐cm diameter)
  • Wire‐mesh grid (approximate size: 15 × 40–cm; 0.5‐cm mesh)
  • Infrared heat lamp, 150 watts

Support Protocol 1: Scoring Parameters for the Water Maze Test

  Materials
  • Mice or rats (3‐, 4‐, 7‐weeks old juveniles and 3‐month‐old adults; ∼12 animals per experimental group)
  • 50% ethanol
  • Square open‐field arena: ∼45 × 45 × 35 (height)–cm or ∼80 × 80 × 60 (height)–cm for 3‐ or 4‐week‐old mice and rats, respectively, with a line grid (optional; see protocol 4), indirect, diffuse lighting, and a spatial visual cue (e.g., a striped pattern of at least 30 × 30 cm placed in a constant position just out of the arena)
  • Five plastic objects of different shapes similar in size to the experimental animals (height of 4 to 6 cm or 8 to 10 cm for 3‐ or 4‐week‐old mice and rats, respectively)
  • Videocamera and videorecorder
  • Computer with video‐tracking software (e.g., Ethovision, http://www.noldus.com; Smart, http://www.panlab‐sl.com; VideoMot2, http://www.tse‐systems.com)
NOTE: The procedures in this protocol consist of seven sessions in which two spatial modifications are presented: an object displacement (spatial rearrangement) and a novel object. Between sessions, return the animal to its home cage. Intersession intervals last 4 min, except for the interval between sessions 6 and 7, which can be longer (see below).
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Figures

Videos

Literature Cited

   Alleva, E. and Calamandrei, G. 1986. Odor‐aversion learning and retention span in neonatal mouse pups. Behav. Neural. Biol. 46:348‐357.
   Belzung, C. 1999. Measuring rodent exploratory behavior. In Handbook of Molecular‐Genetic Techniques for Brain and Behavior Research (W.E. Crusio and R.T. Gerlai, eds.) pp. 738‐752. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
   Branchi, I. and Ricceri, L. 2002. Transgenic and knock‐out mouse pups: The growing need for behavioral analysis. Genes Brain Behav. 1:135‐141.
   Branchi, I. and Ricceri, L. 2004. Refining learning and memory assessment in laboratory rodents. An ethological perspective. Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita 40:231‐236.
   Buhot, M.C. and Naili, S. 1995. Changes in exploratory activity following stimulation of hippocampal 5‐HT1A and 5‐HT1B receptors in the rat. Hippocampus 5:198‐208.
   Calamandrei, G. 2001. Ontogeny of learning. In Frontiers of Life (D. Baltimore, R. Dulbecco, F. Jacob, and R. Levi‐Montalcini, eds.) pp. 55‐64. Academic Press, San Diego.
   Carman, H.M. and Mactutus, C.F. 2001. Ontogeny of spatial navigation in rats: A role for response requirements? Behav. Neurosci. 115:870‐879.
   Chiarotti, F., Alleva, E., and Bignami, G. 1987. Problems of test choice and data analysis in behavioral teratology: The case of prenatal benzodiazepines. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 9:179‐186.
   Cirulli, F., Adriani, W., and Laviola, G. 1997. Sexual segregation in infant mice: Behavioural and neuroendocrine responses to d‐amphetamine administration. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 134:140‐152.
   D'Hooge, R. and De Deyn, P.P. 2001. Applications of the Morris water maze in the study of learning and memory. Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev. 36:60‐90.
   Francis, D.D., Zaharia, M.D., Shanks, N., and Anisman, H. 1995. Stress‐induced disturbances in Morris water‐maze performance: Interstrain variability. Physiol. Behav. 58:57‐65.
   Frick, K.M., Stillner, E.T., and Berger‐Sweeney, J. 2000. Mice are not little rats: Species differences in a one‐day water maze task. Neuroreport 11:3461‐3465.
   Iivonen, H., Nurminen, L., Harri, M., Tanila, H., and Puolivali, J. 2003. Hypothermia in mice tested in Morris water maze. Behav. Brain Res. 141:207‐213.
   Johanson, I.B. and Hall, W.G. 1979. Appetitive learning in 1‐day‐old rat pups. Science 205:419‐421.
   Kamil, A.C. and Mauldin, J.E. 1988. A comparative‐ecological approach to the study of learning. In Evolution and Learning (R.C. Bolles and M.D. Beecher, eds.) pp.117‐133. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
   Krasnegor, N., Blass, E., Hofer, M., and Smotherman, W. 1987 Perinatal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando.
   Kuhn, C.M. and Schanberg, S.M. 1998. Responses to maternal separation: Mechanisms and mediators. Int. J. Dev. Neurosci. 16:261‐270.
   Lipp, H.P. and Wolfer, D.P. 1998. Genetically modified mice and cognition. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 8:272‐280.
   Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1993 Measuring Behaviour—An Introductory Guide. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
   McMahan, R.W., Sobel, T.J., and Baxter, M.G. 1997. Selective immunolesions of hippocampal cholinergic input fail to impair spatial working memory. Hippocampus 7:130‐136.
   Morris, R. 1981. Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learn. Motiv. 12:239‐260.
   Morris, R. 1984. Developments of a water‐maze procedure for studying spatial learning in the rat. J. Neurosci. Methods 11:47‐60.
   Morris, R.G., Anderson, E., Lynch, G.S., and Baudry, M. 1986. Selective impairment of learning and blockade of long‐term potentiation by an N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate receptor antagonist, AP5. Nature 319:774‐776.
   Poucet, B. 1989. Object exploration, habituation, and response to a spatial change in rats following septal or medial frontal cortical damage. Behav. Neurosci. 103:1009‐1016.
   Ricceri, L. 2003. Behavioral patterns under cholinergic control during development: Lessons learned from the selective immunotoxin 192 IgG saporin. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 27:377‐384.
   Ricceri, L., Colozza, C., and Calamandrei, G. 2000. Ontogeny of spatial discrimination in mice: A longitudinal analysis in the modified open‐field with objects. Dev. Psychobiol. 37:109‐118.
   Ricceri, L., Usiello, A., Valanzano, A., Calamandrei, G., Frick, K., and Berger‐Sweeney, J. 1999. Neonatal 192 IgG‐saporin lesions of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons selectively impair response to spatial novelty in adult rats. Behav. Neurosci. 113:1204‐1215.
   Rice, D. and Barone, S. Jr. 2000. Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: Evidence from humans and animal models. Environ. Health Perspect. 108:511‐533.
   Rudy, J.W. and Cheatle, M.D. 1977. Odor‐aversion learning in neonatal rats. Science 198:845‐846.
   Save, E., Poucet, B., Foreman, N., and Buhot, M.C. 1992. Object exploration and reactions to spatial and nonspatial changes in hooded rats following damage to parietal cortex or hippocampal formation. Behav. Neurosci. 106:447‐456.
   Schenk, F. 1987. Comparison of spatial learning in woodmice (Apodemus sylvaticus) and hooded rats (Rattus norvegicus). J. Comp. Psychol. 101:150‐158.
   Thinus‐Blanc, C., Save, E., Rossi‐Arnaud, C., Tozzi, A., and Ammassari‐Teule, M. 1996. The differences shown by C57BL/6 and DBA/2 inbred mice in detecting spatial novelty are subserved by a different hippocampal and parietal cortex interplay. Behav. Brain Res. 80:33‐40.
   Usiello, A., Sargolini, F., Roullet, P., Ammassari‐Teule, M., Passino, E., Oliverio, A., and Mele, A. 1998. N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate receptors in the nucleus accumbens are involved in detection of spatial novelty in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 137:175‐183.
   van der Staay, F.J. 2000. Effects of the size of the Morris water tank on spatial discrimination learning in the CFW1 mouse. Physiol. Behav. 68:599‐602.
   Whishaw, I.Q. 1995. A comparison of rats and mice in a swimming pool place task and matching to place task: Some surprising differences. Physiol. Behav. 58:687‐693.
   Whishaw, I.Q. and Tomie, J.A. 1996. Of mice and mazes: Similarities between mice and rats on dry land but not water mazes. Physiol. Behav. 60:1191‐1197.
   Wolfer, D.P., Stagljar‐Bozicevic, M., Errington, M.L., and Lipp, H.P. 1998. Spatial memory and learning in transgenic mice: Fact or artifact? News Physiol. Sci. 13:118‐123.
Key References
   Bignami, G. 1996. Economical test methods for developmental neurobehavioral toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 104:285‐298.
  An overview of methodological issues concerning the study of behavior in young rodents from early postnatal development.
   Carman and Mactutus, 2001. See above.
  An elegant and exhaustive work on the role of response requirements in the Morris water maze for pre‐ and postweanling rats.
   Ricceri et al., 2000. See above.
  This longitudinal study investigates the emergence of spatial discrimination and reaction to novelty in CD‐1 mice in the spatial open‐field with objects test.
   Wolfer et al., 1998. See above.
  Spatial learning is confounded by species‐specific noncognitive strategies. This work shows how cognitive and noncognitive strategies affect the learning performance in the water maze task by factor analysis.
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library