Cited by 137Stress Responses and CortisolMemory and Neural MechanismsNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior

Variations of maternal care differentially influence ‘fear’ reactivity and regional patterns of cFos immunoreactivity in response to the shock-probe burying test

Menard, J.L., Champagne, D.L., Meaney, M.J.P.·2004·Neuroscience

Abstract

Natural variations in maternal care in the rat influence the development of neuronal systems that regulate endocrine and behavioral responses to stress. Thus, as adults, rats that received higher levels of maternal licking/grooming (LG) in infancy are less 'fearful' in response to novelty, compared with adult offspring of Low LG mothers. The present study examined the influence of maternal care on behavioral and neuronal responses to a more specific, localizable form of threat using an electrified probe in the shock-probe burying test. Even under these conditions, adult offspring of High LG mothers displayed lower levels of fear reactivity (i.e. less shock-induced freezing and probe burying) throughout the test than did offspring of Low LG mothers. These differences in fearfulness were associated with differential patterns of cFos immunoreactivity (cFos-IR), 120 min following test exposure. Relative to control rats exposed to a non-electrified probe, cFos-IR was increased in the offspring of High LG mothers exposed to an electrified probe in the dentate gyrus, ventral subiculum, lateral and medial septum, nucleus accumbens and the dorsal periaqueductal gray. Shock-exposed offspring of Low LG dams displayed a very different pattern of neuronal activation characterized by both increases (area CA1 of the ventral hippocampus and the inferior colliculus) and decreases (paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray) in cFos-IR compared with t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.08.009

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?

  • Variations in pup LG over the first week of postnatal life affect the development of behavioral and HPA responses to stress in adulthood.

    “We and other labs find that variations in pup LG over the first week of postnatal life rat affect the development of behavioral and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) responses to stress in adulthood.66-75”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 84 · Cited by 137

Authors
Menard, J. L., Champagne, D. L., & Meaney, M. J. P.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Menard, J.L.
Venue
Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-01
Volume
129
Issue
2
Pages
297-308
ISSN
0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087487045
Cited by
137
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Keywords
maternal care, fear reactivity, stress response, dentate gyrus, ventral subiculum, septum, nucleus accumbens, periaqueductal gray, hippocampus, inferior colliculus, paraventricular nucleus, rat offspring
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Brain Chemistry, Electroshock, Fear, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Maternal Behavior, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos, Rats, Long-Evans, Rats

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