Cited by 101Stress Responses and CortisolNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Behavioral control over shock blocks behavioral and neurochemical effects of later social defeat

Open access
Amat, J., Aleksejev, R.M., Paul, E., Watkins, L.R., Maier, S.F.·2010·Neuroscience

Abstract

Experience with behavioral control over tailshock (escapable shock, ES) has been shown to block the behavioral and neurochemical changes produced by later uncontrollable tail shock (inescapable shock, IS). The present experiments tested, in rats, whether the protective effect of control over tailshock extends beyond reducing the behavioral and neurochemical impact of a subsequent tailshock experience to stressors that are quite different. Social defeat (SD) was chosen as the second stress experience because it has few if any cues in common with tailshock. SD produced shuttlebox escape learning deficits ("learned helplessness") and reduced juvenile social investigation 24 h later, as does IS. IS is notable for inducing a large increase in dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) serotonergic (5-HT) activity as measured by extracellular levels of 5-HT within the DRN, and SD did so as well. ES occurring 7 days before SD blocked this SD-induced DRN activation, as well as the SD-induced interference with shuttlebox escape and reduction in social investigation. Prior exposure to yoked IS did not reduce the DRN 5-HT activation or later behavioral effects produced by SD, and thus the proactive stress-blunting effects of ES can be attributed to it's controllability. Thus, ES confers a very general protection to the impact of a subsequent stress experience.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.11.005

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Immunization is trans-situational: inescapable shock in one situation blocks passivity/anxiety caused by stressors not involving shock in different situations.

    “Second, it is trans-situational and so inescapable shock in one situation blocks the passivity/anxiety caused by even stressors that do not involve shock in different situations.”

    From Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. (2016) · cites this paper as Amat et al. (2010)

    The Discussion reports that prior escapable shock blocked the behavioral effects of later social defeat, a stressor involving no shock. It explicitly says yoked inescapable shock did not have this effect and slightly, though not significantly, exaggerated those effects. The claim reverses which initial shock condition was protective. (LLM, conf=0.95)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Experience with escapable shock blocked passivity in shuttle escape and blocked reduced social investigation produced by social defeat seven days later.

    “For example, Amat et al. (2010) reported that experience with escapable shock blocked the passivity in shuttle escape and also blocked the reduced social investigation (anxiety) produced by social defeat occurring seven days later.”

    From Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. (2016) · cites this paper as Amat et al. (2010)

  • Social defeat increased DRN 5-HT activity, and prior escapable shock prevented this increase.

    “As would be expected, social defeat also increased dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT activity, and this increase was prevented by the prior escapable shock (Amat et al., 2010).”

    From Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. (2016) · cites this paper as Amat et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amat, J., Aleksejev, R. M., Paul, E., Watkins, L. R., & Maier, S. F.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Amat, J.
Venue
Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-02
Volume
165
Issue
4
Pages
1031-1038
ISSN
0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993727909
Cited by
101
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (MH 50479)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
escapable shock, inescapable shock, social defeat, stress resilience, learned helplessness, dorsal raphe nucleus, serotonin, social investigation, yoked control
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Dominance-Subordination, Electroshock, Escape Reaction, Exploratory Behavior, Extracellular Space, Helplessness, Learned, Learning, Male, Raphe Nuclei, Serotonin, Stress, Psychological, Time Factors, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, 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