Cited by 27Genetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersWilliams Syndrome ResearchAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

Normal Performance of Fmr1 Mice on a Touchscreen Delayed Nonmatching to Position Working Memory Task

Open access
Leach, Prescott T., Hayes, Jane, Pride, Michael, Silverman, Jill L., Crawley, Jacqueline N.·2016·eneuro

Abstract

Fragile X syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by mild-to-severe cognitive deficits. The complete absence of Fmr1 and its protein product in the mouse model of fragile X (Fmr1 KO) provides construct validity. A major conundrum in the field is the remarkably normal performance of Fmr1 mice on cognitive tests in most reports. One explanation may be insufficiently challenging cognitive testing procedures. Here we developed a delayed nonmatching to position touchscreen task to test the hypothesis that paradigms placing demands on working memory would reveal robust and replicable cognitive deficits in the Fmr1 KO mouse. We first tested Fmr1 KO mice (Fmr1) and their wild-type (WT) littermates in a simple visual discrimination task, followed by assessment of reversal learning. We then tested Fmr1 and WT mice in a new touchscreen nonmatch to position task and subsequently challenged their working memory abilities by adding delays, representing a higher cognitive load. The performance by Fmr1 KO mice was equal to WTs on both touchscreen tasks. Last, we replicated previous reports of normal performance by Fmr1 mice on Morris water maze spatial navigation and reversal. These results indicate that, while the Fmr1 mouse model effectively recapitulates many molecular and cellular aspects of fragile X syndrome, the cognitive profile of Fmr1 mice generally does not recapitulate the primary cognitive deficits in the human syndrome, even when diverse and challenging tasks are imposed.

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 · 10.1523/eneuro.0143-15.2016

Cites

84 of 84 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?

  • Standard learning and memory tasks detect cognitive deficits in Fmr1-knockout mice in some reports but normal performance in others, within and across laboratories, independent of genetic background.

    “Standard learning and memory tasks for mice — including the Morris water maze, fear conditioning, passive avoidance, novel object recognition, visual discrimination and delayed non-matching to position — detected deficits in Fmr1-KO mice in some reports, but normal performance in others, both within and across laboratories and unrelated to the genetic background (FVB/NJ, FVB/AntJ or C57BL/6J)61–63”
  • Available mouse operant touchscreen paradigms seem to have face validity relative to human cognitive touchscreen tasks, although there is concern that the cognitive profile of Fmr1-KO mice may not emulate the cognitive deficits in the human syndrome.

    “available mouse operant touchscreen paradigms seem to have face validity63,89,101–104 relative to human cognitive touchscreen tasks97, although there is concern that the cognitive profile of Fmr1-KO mice may not emulate the cognitive deficits in the human syndrome63.”

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
Leach, P. T., Hayes, J., Pride, M., Silverman, J. L., & Crawley, J. N.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Leach, Prescott T.
Venue
eneuro
Published
2016-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
ENEURO.0143-15.2016
ISSN
2373-2822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2299305793
Cited by
27
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • eNeuro (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1R01-NS-085709, R01NS085709)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD079125)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Williams Syndrome Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
fragile X syndrome, Fmr1 knockout mice, working memory, touchscreen task, reversal learning, Morris water maze, spatial navigation, cognitive impairment, construct validity, cognitive load
MeSH terms
Animals, Choice Behavior, Discrimination, Psychological, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Fragile X Syndrome, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Reversal Learning, Mice, Knockout, Maze Learning, Mice, Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein, Fragile X Messenger Ribonucleoprotein 1

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