Cited by 49Neuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyStress Responses and CortisolNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior

Mouse strain differences in the behavioral effects of Corticotropin-Releasing Factor (CRF) and the CRF antagonist α-helical CRF9–41

Conti, Lisa H., Costello, Diane G., Martin, Laura A., White, Marsha F., Abreu, Mary E.·1994·Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

Abstract

The effect of the corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) antagonist alpha-helical CRF9-41 (alpha H CRF9-41; 25 and 50 micrograms) was examined in four strains of mice (BALB/C, NIH Swiss, CF-1, and CD) in the elevated plus-maze anxiolytic test and found to significantly increase percent open arm activity in only the BALB/C mice. A marginal anxiolytic response was obtained in NIH Swiss, while no effect of the antagonist was noted in CF-1 or CD mice in this test. Diazepam (1-4 mg/kg IP) significantly increased percent open arm activity in all four mouse strains. Thus, all strains were sensitive to the effects of a known anxiolytic in this test. The locomotor-suppressing effect of the agonist CRF was assessed in the four strains of mice. While CRF suppressed locomotor activity in each of the strains, the peptide was more efficacious and more potent in the BALB/C strain than in any of the other three strains. The behavioral differences in responsiveness to CRF and the antagonist alpha H CRF9-41 could not be explained on the basis of differential binding of CRF to forebrain membranes in the four mouse strains. These data suggest that the BALB/C mouse is more sensitive to the behavioral effects of CRF and its antagonist than other strains and may be a useful strain for examining the effects of CRF and/or stress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0091-3057(94)90559-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Specific behavioral effects may be induced by specific microbiota.

    “Studies with different strains of laboratory mice indicate that there may be specific behavioral effects induced by specific microbiota.”

    From The Gut Microbiome and the Brain (2014) · cites this paper as [16]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 49

Authors
Conti, L. H., Costello, D. G., Martin, L. A., White, M. F., & Abreu, M. E.
Corresponding author
Conti, Lisa H.
Venue
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-06
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
497-503
ISSN
0091-3057 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040300555
Cited by
49
References
28
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Keywords
corticotropin-releasing factor, CRF antagonist, mouse strain differences, anxiolytic effects, elevated plus maze, locomotor suppression, diazepam, BALB/c mice, NIH Swiss mice, CF1 mice, stress
MeSH terms
Animals, Anxiety, Behavior, Animal, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Diazepam, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Injections, Intraventricular, Male, Mice, Inbred BALB C, Mice, Inbred Strains, Motor Activity, Peptide Fragments, Species Specificity, Receptors, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review