Cited by 92Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsStress Responses and Cortisol

A novel approach to PTSD modeling in rats reveals alternating patterns of limbic activity in different types of stress reaction

Open access
Ritov, G, Boltyansky, B, Richter-Levin, G·2016·Molecular Psychiatry

Abstract

Human reactions to trauma exposure are extremely diverse, with some individuals exhibiting only time-limited distress and others qualifying for posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (PTSD). Furthermore, whereas most PTSD patients mainly display fear-based symptoms, a minority of patients display a co-morbid anhedonic phenotype. We employed an individual profiling approach to model these intriguing facets of the psychiatric condition in underwater-trauma exposed rats. Based on long-term assessments of anxiety-like and anhedonic behaviors, our analysis uncovered three separate phenotypes of stress response; an anxious, fear-based (38%), a co-morbid, fear-anhedonic (15%), and an exposed-unaffected group (47%). Immunohistochemical assessments for cellular activation (c-Fos) and activation of inhibition (c-Fos+GAD67) revealed a differential involvement of limbic regions and distinct co-activity patterns for each of these phenotypes, validating the behavioral categorization. In accordance with recent neurocognitive hypotheses for posttraumatic depression, we show that enhanced pretrauma anxiety predicts the progression of posttraumatic anhedonia only in the fear-anhedonic phenotype.

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 · 10.1038/mp.2015.169

Cites

44 of 44 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?

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
Ritov, G., Boltyansky, B., & Richter-Levin, G.
Affiliations
University of Haifa (IL)
Venue
Molecular Psychiatry
Published
2015-11-10
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
630-641
ISSN
  • 1359-4184 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5578
OpenAlex
W2137703000
Cited by
92
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3
FWCI
12.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Defense (W81XWH)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, anhedonia, fear, anxiety-like behavior, limbic system, c-fos, GAD67, post-traumatic depression, stress response
MeSH terms
Animals, Anxiety, Disease Models, Animal, Fear, Glutamate Decarboxylase, Immunohistochemistry, Limbic System, Male, Phenotype, Random Allocation, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats, Anhedonia

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