CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 239Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A combined marble burying–locomotor activity test in mice: A practical screening test with sensitivity to different classes of anxiolytics and antidepressants

Nicolas, Laurent B., Kolb, Yeter, Prinssen, Eric P.M.·2006·European Journal of Pharmacology
DOI 10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.07.015
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Over the last decades, the inhibition of spontaneous burying of glass marbles by mice has been used as an index of anxiolytic drug action in the so-called marble burying test. Indeed, acute administration of rapid-onset (e.g. diazepam) and slow-onset (e.g. fluoxetine) anxiolytics inhibit marble burying. However, non-anxiolytic compounds such as classical antipsychotics also reduce marble burying thus suggesting that the predictive validity of this procedure for anxiety may be limited. In the present study, after having selected a strain of mice (C57BL/6J) that showed spontaneous avoidance of glass marbles, we tried to improve the predictive validity of the marble burying test for anxiety by measuring locomotor activity during the marble burying test and--if needed--in control experiments by using a videotracking system. Twenty-four reference compounds were tested including anxiolytics, anxiogenics, antidepressants, antipsychotics and other classes. By comparing marble burying scores with locomotor measures, we found that, based on our criteria, most of the anxiolytics and antidepressants selectively inhibited marble burying in contrast to most of the other compounds (e.g. haloperidol, morphine). Two putative anxiolytics, i.e. the nociceptin orphanin FQ peptide receptor agonist Ro 64-6198 and the metabotropic glutamate 5 receptor antagonist 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine, also showed a selective profile. We propose this modified procedure, requiring only a limited number of animals, as a valuable screening test for the detection of compounds having anxiolytic effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.07.015

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The marble-burying test is a rodent model of anxiety that has high predictive value to detect anxiolytic-like activity of acutely administered drugs.

    “The marble-burying test is a rodent model of anxiety that has high predictive value to detect anxiolytic-like activity of acutely administered drugs (Nicolas et al, 2006).”

    From Divergent Functional Effects of Sazetidine-A and Varenicline During Nicotine Withdrawal (2013) · cites this paper as Nicolas et al, 2006

  • The marble-burying test strongly predicts anxiolytic-like activity of drugs given acutely.

    “This test has high predictive value to detect anxiolytic-like activity of acutely administered drugs (Nicolas et al., 2006), which is demonstrated by the positive result of CDP (10 mg/kg) in this test (Fig. 2).”

    From Nicotinic Partial Agonists Varenicline and Sazetidine-A Have Differential Effects on Affective Behavior (2010) · cites this paper as Nicolas et al., 2006

  • Burying behavior is quantifiable and sensitive to anxiolytics.

    “This burying behavior is quantifiable and sensitive to anxiolytics45,46.”

    From Resolving the neural circuits of anxiety (2015) · cites this paper as [45]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nicolas, L. B., Kolb, Y., & Prinssen, E. P. M.
Affiliations
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
Corresponding author
Prinssen, Eric P.M.
Venue
European Journal of Pharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
547
Issue
1-3
Pages
106-115
ISSN
0014-2999 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.07.015
OpenAlex
W2031480693
Cited by
234
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • European Journal of Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Akademie der Naturwissenschaften
  • Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
marble burying test, locomotor activity, anxiety screening, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotic drugs, diazepam, fluoxetine, haloperidol, morphine, C57BL/6J mice, predictive validity, drug screening
MeSH terms
Animals, Antidepressive Agents, Behavior, Animal, Diazepam, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Fluoxetine, Haloperidol, Imidazoles, Male, Mice, Inbred BALB C, Mice, Inbred CBA, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Morphine, Motor Activity, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Pyridines, Species Specificity, Spiro Compounds, Antipsychotic Agents, Anti-Anxiety Agents, Reproducibility of Results, 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