Cited by 457Memory and Neural MechanismsStress Responses and CortisolNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Role of the Hippocampus, the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis, and the Amygdala in the Excitatory Effect of Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone on the Acoustic Startle Reflex

Open access
Lee, Younglim, Davis, Michael·1997·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Previously, we demonstrated that transection of the fimbria/fornix blocked the excitatory effect of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) on startle (CRH-enhanced startle), suggesting that the hippocampus and its efferent target areas that communicate via the fimbria may be critically involved in CRH-enhanced startle. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) receives direct projections from the ventral hippocampus via the fimbria/fornix. Therefore, the role of the ventral hippocampus, the BNST, and the amygdala in CRH-enhanced startle was investigated. NMDA lesions of the BNST completely blocked CRH-enhanced startle, whereas chemical lesions of the ventral hippocampus and the amygdala failed to block CRH-enhanced startle. However, the same amygdala-lesioned animals showed a complete blockade of fear-potentiated startle, a conditioned fear response sensitive to manipulations of the amygdala. In contrast, BNST-lesioned rats had normal fear-potentiated startle. This indicates a double dissociation between the BNST and the amygdala in two different paradigms that enhance startle amplitude. Microinfusions of CRH into the BNST, but not into the ventral hippocampus, mimicked intracerebroventricular CRH effects. Furthermore, infusion of a CRH antagonist into the BNST blocked CRH-enhanced startle in a dose-dependent manner. Control studies showed that this blockade did not result from either leakage of the antagonist into the ventricular system or a local anesthetic effect caused by infusion of the antagonist into the BNST. The present studies strongly suggest that CRH in the CSF can activate the BNST, which could lead to activation of brainstem and hypothalamic BNST target areas involved in anxiety and stress responses.

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/jneurosci.17-16-06434.1997

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • CRF-enhanced startle depends on BNSTL, not CeA: BNSTL lesions or local CRF antagonist blocked it, while CeA manipulations did not.

    “We also found that the BNSTL, but not the CeA, was involved in CRF-enhanced startle. For instance, excitotoxic BNSTL lesions, or local infusions of a CRF antagonist into the BNSTL, completely blocked CRF-enhanced startle, although similar lesions of the CeA, or infusions into the CeA, did not”

    From Phasic vs Sustained Fear in Rats and Humans: Role of the Extended Amygdala in Fear vs Anxiety (2010) · cites this paper as Lee and Davis, 1997

    The chemical-lesion Results report that BNST lesions completely blocked CRH-enhanced startle, whereas CeA lesions did not. The intra-BNST infusion Results report a dose-dependent attenuation by the CRH antagonist—not complete blockade—and the intra-CeA infusion Results report no blockade. The paper identifies the targeted region as BNST, without establishing the more specific BNSTL designation in these passages (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • BNST infusion of the CRF1 antagonist blocked sustained fear to the 8-min clicker, whereas CeA infusion of a CRF antagonist did not affect phasic fear.

    “We also found that local infusion into the BNST of this CRF1 antagonist blocked sustained fear to the 8-min clicker, in contrast to the lack of effect of the local infusion of a CRF antagonist into the CeA on phasic fear”

    From Phasic vs Sustained Fear in Rats and Humans: Role of the Extended Amygdala in Fear vs Anxiety (2010) · cites this paper as Lee and Davis, 1997

    The section on intra-CeA infusion reports that the CRH antagonist did not block light-cued fear-potentiated startle, supporting the phasic-fear comparison. The intra-BNST results instead report attenuation of startle enhanced by infused CRH; they do not report sustained fear to an 8-minute clicker. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A CRF antagonist infused into the central amygdala failed to block CRF-enhanced startle.

    “a CRF antagonist infused into the CeA failed to block CRF-enhanced startle (Lee and Davis, 1997)”
  • In the same lesioned rats tested for CRF-enhanced startle, central amygdala lesions, but not bed nucleus of the stria terminalis lesions, disrupted fear-potentiated startle.

    “Lee and Davis (1997) confirmed that CeA, but not BNST, lesions disrupted fear-potentiated startle.”
  • Excitotoxic lesions of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, but not the central amygdala, blocked CRF-enhanced startle.

    “excitotoxic lesions of the BNST, but not the CeA, blocked CRF-enhanced startle”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [52]52. Post RM, Ballenger JC, Uhde TW, Putman Jr F W, Bunney WE (1981) K indling and drug sensitization: implications for the progressive devel- opment of psychopathology and treatment with carbamazepine. In: The psychopharmacology of anticonvulsant (Sandler M, ed), pp 27-53. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, Y., & Davis, M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1997-08-15
Volume
17
Issue
16
Pages
6434-6446
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1754932253
Cited by
457
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 10
FWCI
11.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 47840, MH 00004)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
corticotropin-releasing factor, acoustic startle response, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, ventral hippocampus, amygdala, fear-potentiated startle, NMDA lesions, fimbria-fornix, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, stress response, anxiety
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Amygdala, Animals, Anxiety, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Fear, Hippocampus, Hormone Antagonists, Injections, Intraventricular, Male, Peptide Fragments, Septal Nuclei, Reflex, Startle, 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