The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of learning by the Morris water task and fear conditioning in inbred mouse strains and F1 hybrids: implications of genetic background for single gene mutations and quantitative trait loci analyses
Abstract
Genetic methods including the creation of transgenic or null mutant models and mapping studies using quantitative trait loci strategies can be used to identify candidate genes in mice that regulate learning processes. Interpretations as to the impact of single gene mutations for polygenic behaviours like learning will depend in part on the genetic background of the animals used for these manipulations. To address the issue of genetic variability, 12 inbred strains and seven different F1 hybrids were tested on multiple behavioural tasks, including two complex learning paradigms: the Morris water task and fear conditioning. Strain differences were found for all variables measured. In the hidden platform version of the Morris task, the albino animals performed poorly while overall the F1 hybrids showed the best selectivity for the trained quadrant as measured in a probe trial. In contrast, almost all genotypes performed well on the contextual fear conditioning task and learned to associate the test context with the pairing of a foot shock and auditory stimulus as demonstrated 24 h after training by increased freezing in the test environment compared to an altered context. Significant genetic correlations were obtained for behavioural measures suggesting that the same genes regulate various aspects of performance on behavioural tasks. Scores from these multiple inbred strains and F1 hybrids provide a baseline level of learning ability for fear conditioning and the Morris water task. The results of the present study confirm the importance of genetic background in the performance of various learning tasks. This variability should be considered when developing new transgenic or null mutant animal models.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“This strain was chosen because it performs well in fear conditioning (Owen et al., 1997) and is sensitive to the effects of nicotine on learning (Kenney and Gould, 2008).”
From The duration of nicotine withdrawal-associated deficits in contextual fear conditioning parallels changes in hippocampal high affinity nicotinic acetylcholine receptor upregulation (2012) · cites this paper as Owen et al., 1997
Citations
Cites
Place navigation impaired in rats with hippocampal lesions
Morris, R. G. M., Garrud, P., Rawlins, J. N. P., & O'Keefe, J. (1982) · Nature · doi:10.1038/297681a0 · Cited by 6,340
Differential contribution of amygdala and hippocampus to cued and contextual fear conditioning.
Phillips, R. G., & LeDoux, J. E. (1992) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.106.2.274 · Cited by 3,292
Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues
Morris, R. G. M. (1981) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/0023-9690(81)90020-5 · Cited by 2,699
Modality-Specific Retrograde Amnesia of Fear
Kim, J. J., & Fanselow, M. S. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1585183 · Cited by 2,483
Targeted Disruption of Mouse EGF receptor: Effect of Genetic Background on Mutant Phenotype
Threadgill, D. W., Dlugosz, A. A., Hansen, L. A., Tennenbaum, T., Lichti, U., Yee, D., LaMantia, C., Mourton, T., Herrup, K., Harris, R. C., et al. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7618084 · Cited by 1,179
Strain-Dependent Epithelial Defects in Mice Lacking the EGF Receptor
Sibilia, M., & Wagner, E. F. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7618085 · Cited by 1,002
Sutherland, R. J., & Rudy, J. W. (1989) · Psychobiology · doi:10.3758/bf03337828 · Cited by 970
Gene-targeting studies of mammalian behavior: is it the mutation or the background genotype?
Gerlai, R. (1996) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(96)20020-7 · Cited by 881
Repeated stress causes reversible impairments of spatial memory performance.
Luine, V., Villegas, M., Martinez, C., & McEwen, B. (1994) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(94)91778-7 · Cited by 813
FVB/N: an inbred mouse strain preferable for transgenic analyses.
Taketo, M. M., Schroeder, A. C., Mobraaten, L. E., Gunning, K. B., Hanten, G. R., Fox, R. R., Roderick, T. H., Stewart, C. L., Lilly, F., & Hansen, C. T. (1991) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.88.6.2065 · Cited by 600
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Plomin R., DeFries J. C. and McClearn G. E. (1990) Quantitative genetic theory. Behavioral Genetics: A Primer. 2nd edn, pp. 207–253. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Applications of the Morris water maze in the study of learning and memory
D’Hooge, R., & Deyn, P. P. D. (2001) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00067-4 · Cited by 2,083
Crawley, J. N., Belknap, J. K., Collins, A. C., Crabbe, J. C., Frankel, W. N., Henderson, N. D., HITZEMANN, R. J., Maxson, S. C., Miner, L. L., Silva, A. J., et al. (1997) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130050327 · Cited by 1,389
Self-citationMouse behavioral tasks relevant to autism: Phenotypes of 10 inbred strains
MOY, S., NADLER, J., YOUNG, N., PEREZ, A., HOLLOWAY, L., BARBARO, R., BARBARO, J., WILSON, L., THREADGILL, D., & LAUDER, J. (2007) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2006.07.030 · Cited by 776
Learning and Memory and Synaptic Plasticity Are Impaired in a Mouse Model of Rett Syndrome
Moretti, P., Levenson, J. M., Battaglia, F., Atkinson, R., Teague, R., Antalffy, B., Armstrong, D., Arancio, O., Sweatt, J. D., & Zoghbi, H. Y. (2006) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2623-05.2006 · Cited by 545
Lucki, I., Dalvi, A., & Mayorga, A. J. (2001) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130100694 · Cited by 501
Metadata
- Authors
- Owen, E. H., Logue, S. F., Rasmussen, D. L., & Wehner, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- J. M. Wehner
- ORCID
- J. M. Wehner
- Venue
- Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1997-08
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1087-1099
- ISSN
- 0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2142349181
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 12.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01mh048663-05)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH16880, MH-48663, T32MH016880)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 07289, T32HD007289)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- learning, genetic background, inbred mouse strains, F1 hybrids, Morris water task, fear conditioning, contextual fear, genetic correlation, single-gene mutations, quantitative trait loci, candidate genes, albino mice, behavioral variability
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Animals, Conditioning, Operant, Crosses, Genetic, Electroshock, Fear, Female, Genotype, Male, Mice, Inbred Strains, Models, Genetic, Mutation, Species Specificity, Maze Learning, 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
