Cited by 69Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyStress Responses and Cortisol

Differential Effects of the CRF-R1 Antagonist GSK876008 on Fear-Potentiated, Light- and CRF-Enhanced Startle Suggest Preferential Involvement in Sustained vs Phasic Threat Responses

Open access
Walker, David, Yang, Yong, Ratti, Emiliangelo, Corsi, Mauro, Trist, David, Davis, Michael·2009·Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

The amplitude of the acoustic startle response is increased when elicited in the presence of brief cues that predict shock (fear-potentiated startle) and also when elicited during sustained exposure to bright light (light-enhanced startle). Although both effects are thought to reflect fear or anxiety, their neuroanatomical substrates differ. Although fear-potentiated startle is disrupted by reversible inactivation of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) but not the closely related bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), light-enhanced startle is disrupted by BNST inactivation but not by CeA inactivation. Intraventricular infusions of corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) also increase startle (CRF-enhanced startle) and this effect is mediated by CRF receptors within the BNST, with no involvement of the CeA. Together, these observations suggest that CeA- and BNST-dependent fear and anxiety may be differentially sensitive to CRF receptor blockade. We tested this by orally administering the novel, potent, and selective CRF-R1 antagonist GSK876008 to rats before CRF-enhanced, light-enhanced, or fear-potentiated startle testing. GSK876008 disrupted CRF-enhanced startle with a linear dose-response curve, and light-enhanced startle with a U-shaped dose-response curve, but did not disrupt fear-potentiated startle to a visual stimulus at any dose tested, and even augmented the response in some animals. GSK876008 also disrupted shock-related 'baseline' startle increases, which may have reflected context conditioning (shown elsewhere to also be BNST-dependent). Overall, these results suggest that short-duration CeA-dependent threat responses can be pharmacologically dissociated from longer duration BNST-dependent responses in terms of their sensitivity to CRF1 receptor antagonists.

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/npp.2008.210

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Corticotropin-releasing factor receptors are preferentially involved in fear-potentiated startle to context but not to discrete fear conditioned stimuli.

    “recent findings from Risbrough et al (2009), as well as from our own laboratory (Walker et al, 2009), indicate a similar and, importantly, preferential involvement of CRF receptors in fear-potentiated startle to context but not discrete fear CSs.”
  • Oral GSK876008, a selective CRF-R1 antagonist, at doses that dose-dependently block CRF-enhanced startle, disrupted light-enhanced startle non-monotonically but did not affect fear-potentiated startle in the same rats.

    “using oral administration of the selective CRF-R1 antagonist GSK876008 (Di Fabio et al, 2008), at doses that dose dependently (linear) disrupt CRF-enhanced startle, we also observed a non-monotonic disruption of light-enhanced startle but no disruption of fear-potentiated startle in the same animals at the same doses”

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
Walker, D., Yang, Y., Ratti, E., Corsi, M., Trist, D., & Davis, M.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (Italy) (IT)
Corresponding author
Walker, David
Venue
Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2008-12-10
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
1533-1542
ISSN
  • 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-634X
OpenAlex
W2083022185
Cited by
69
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9876754)
  • National Institutes of Health (5u19mh069056-10)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH59906, MH-57250, R01MH057250, R01MH059906, U19-MH069056, MH 47840, R37MH047840, MH069056, R01MH047840)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
corticotropin-releasing factor, fear-potentiated startle, acoustic startle response, central amygdala, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, threat response, anxiety, contextual conditioning, dose-response relationship
MeSH terms
CRF Receptor, Type 1, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Fear, Female, Light, Male, Methylcellulose, Photic Stimulation, Reflex, Startle, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Receptors, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, 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