Commentary: The Risky Closed Economy: A Holistic, Longitudinal Approach to Studying Fear and Anxiety in Rodents
Neil Scheidwasser
Melissa Faggella
Elizaveta Kozlova
Carmen Sandi- Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
A Commentary on
The Risky Closed Economy: A Holistic, Longitudinal Approach to Studying Fear and Anxiety in Rodents
by Schuessler, B. P., Zambetti, P. R., Kukuoka, K. M., Kim, E. J., and Kim, J. J. (2020). Front. Behav. Neurosci. 14:594568. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.594568
Animals must constantly adapt their behavior as they navigate through their environment. For instance, fear and anxiety are essential to survival because they elicit immediate responses to harm. Whereas, fear denotes a transient state that arises in response to looming, tangible threats, anxiety-like reactions generally emerge in anticipation of a potential, albeit not concrete danger (Davis et al., 2010). Nowadays, research on emotion regulation and processing is heavily focused on fear and anxiety. Both have been found to be dysfunctional in a variety of human mental conditions, e.g., depression and post-traumatic stress disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These defensive behaviors are also highly conserved across mammals (Tovote et al., 2015). As a result, many experimental tasks have been developed to delve deeper into the neural basis of fear learning. Through a comprehensive review of the most popular paradigms for rodents, recent work by Schuessler et al. (2020) discusses the potential of the “Risky Closed Economy” (RCE) as a more realistic and holistic paradigm to study fear and anxiety. While previously employed in rats (Helmstetter and Fanselow, 1993; Kim et al., 2014; Pellman et al., 2015), the authors also explore a possible adaptation of the RCE for mice.
In contrast to standard rodent experimental paradigms [e.g., Pavlovian fear conditioning (Pavlov, 1927), inhibitory avoidance (Wilensky et al., 2000)], closed economy setups do not allow any nutritional supply outside of the behavioral chamber. In other words, animals must continually acquire their food and water during operant sessions, which results in enhanced involvement of the individuals during the tasks (Kearns, 2019). Schuessler et al.'s RCE's design includes a separation between the animal's nest and a risky “foraging zone,” where potential threats (e.g., predators) are modeled by random footshocks. All in all, these features aim at better approximating natural foraging conditions for rodents (Lima and Valone, 1986).
Another advantageous consequence of the RCE setup is that experiments can be implemented over significantly larger time scales. While fear conditioning experiments usually span only from minutes to a few hours (Pellow et al., 1985; Maren, 2008), Schuessler et al. (2020) were able to monitor mice behavior 23 h/day for 7 weeks. The longer autonomy given to animals helps minimize observer-expectancy effects, as experimenters only intervened for daily health checks. Moreover, studying behavior quasi-continuously during extended periods enables a better overview of how an animal's fear and anxiety evolve over time.
Although the RCE has only been previously applied to rats (Helmstetter and Fanselow, 1993; Kim et al., 2014; Pellman et al., 2015), Schuessler et al. (2020) showed that it can also be adapted to mice. That development will likely open up more research opportunities, in particular making optogenetics experiments easier and drug testing more efficient. However, the success of the current implementation is somewhat mixed. While some of the results from previous rat experiments were successfully replicated, others were not. For instance, introducing unsignaled footshocks in male mice decreased their foraging time, but did not influence the meal size, whereas rats (male or female) showed a change in both parameters (Helmstetter and Fanselow, 1993; Pellman et al., 2017). As a matter of fact, the authors rightfully acknowledge that the footshock regime was likely to be maladapted to male mice. To that end, future work using the RCE should be performed to find more suitable threat paradigms for mice. In addition to the footshock regime, the RCE's viability in mice could also be extended by including signaled footshock paradigms (Pellman et al., 2015) and assessing sex differences in behavioral response to the paradigm. Noting the sexual dimorphisms exhibited by rats in similar closed economy setups (Pellman et al., 2017), or by mice in contextual fear conditioning (Wiltgen et al., 2001; Colon and Poulos, 2020), similar gender disparities seem likely in mice within the RCE.
More generally, several approaches could be implemented to further improve the RCE's ethological relevance for all rodents. For instance, a study of stress hormone dynamics would enhance our understanding of the results yielded by this paradigm. This could be done non-invasively by measuring corticosterone in fecal samples (Touma et al., 2004) to avoid disrupting the RCE environment. Next, using predator-derived odors (e.g., from feces or urine) instead of footshocks would exploit the fact that mice are macrosmatic animals (Gire et al., 2016), and could thus represent a more accurate approximation of potential harm. In addition, as mentioned by the authors, it would also seem natural to incorporate some degree of social interaction, given the social nature of rodents (Tamashiro et al., 2005). Group interactions have already been successfully introduced into similar naturalistic paradigms in other domains (Karamihalev et al., 2019; Kiryk et al., 2020). What's more, recent advances in deep learning make analyses of complex data emerging from these settings easier to handle than ever before. Animal tracking has reached very high accuracy, especially in static environments like laboratory cages (Forys et al., 2018; Mathis et al., 2018). Moreover, automated pipelines such as the Mouse Action Recognition System (MARS) (Segalin et al., 2020) can classify specific types of social interaction in rats with human-level accuracy. Such frameworks could certainly enrich the analysis of RCE experiments with complex behavioral data such as emotional responses (e.g., anxiety-like and depression-like behaviors). That in combination with stress hormone levels would allow understanding whether the RCE paradigm is able to induce and/or assess emotional dysfunctions. Such an approach would facilitate the use of this environment on studies that explore the impact of drugs, or other treatments, in interaction with the living environment (see, e.g., Alboni et al., 2017). Future research will also need to adapt state-of-the-art neurophysiological techniques like optogenetics, fiber photometry; mini-endoscopes for such longitudinal paradigms to shed more light on the neural mechanisms of fear, anxiety, and other relevant behaviors. All in all, although more time-consuming than most fear conditioning paradigms, the RCE enables multi-variable behavioral analysis in a more naturalistic environment. The variety of possible combinations with other methods and technologies makes this paradigm a promising alternative to study fear and anxiety in rodents.
Author Contributions
NS wrote the first draft. NS, MF, EK, and CS edited and contributed to the writing of the final draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by EPFL intramural funding.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Alboni, S., Van Dijk, R. M., Poggini, S., Milior, G., Perrotta, M., Drenth, T., et al. (2017). Fluoxetine effects on molecular, cellular and behavioral endophenotypes of depression are driven by the living environment. Mol. Psychiatry 22, 552–561. doi: 10.1038/mp.2015.142
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Colon, L. M., and Poulos, A. M. (2020). Contextual processing elicits sex differences in dorsal hippocampus activation following footshock and context fear retrieval. Behav. Brain Res. 393:112771. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112771
Davis, M., Walker, D. L., Miles, L., and Grillon, C. (2010). Phasic vs sustained fear in rats and humans: role of the extended amygdala in fear vs anxiety. Neuropsychopharmacology 35, 105–135. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.109
Forys, B., Xiao, D., Gupta, P., Boyd, J. D., and Murphy, T. H. (2018). Real-time markerless video tracking of body parts in mice using deep neural networks. bioRxiv [Preprint]. doi: 10.1101/482349
Gire, D. H., Kapoor, V., Arrighi-Allisan, A., Seminara, A., and Murthy, V. N. (2016). Mice develop efficient strategies for foraging and navigation using complex natural stimuli. Curr. Biol. 26, 1261–1273. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.040
Helmstetter, F. J., and Fanselow, M. S. (1993). Aversively motivated changes in meal patterns of rats in a closed economy: the effects of shock density. Anim. Learn. Behav. 21, 168–175. doi: 10.3758/BF03213397
Karamihalev, S., Flachskamm, C., Eren, N., Kimura, M., and Chen, A. (2019). Social context and dominance status contribute to sleep patterns and quality in groups of freely-moving mice. Sci. Rep. 9:15190. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51375-7
Kearns, D. N. (2019). The effect of economy type on reinforcer value. Behav. Process. 162, 20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2019.01.008
Kim, E., Kim, E. J., Yeh, R., Shin, M., Bobman, J., Krasne, F. B., et al. (2014). Amygdaloid and non-amygdaloid fear both influence avoidance of risky foraging in hungry rats. Proc. R. Soc. B. 281:20133357. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3357
Kiryk, A., Janusz, A., Zglinicki, B., Turkes, E., Knapska, E., Konopka, W., et al. (2020). IntelliCage as a tool for measuring mouse behavior – 20 years perspective. Behav. Brain Res. 388:112620. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112620
Lima, S. L., and Valone, T. J. (1986). Influence of predation risk on diet selection: a simple example in the grey squirrel. Anim. Behav. 34, 536–544. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80122-1
Maren, S. (2008). Pavlovian fear conditioning as a behavioral assay for hippocampus and amygdala function: cautions and caveats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 28, 1661–1666. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06485.x
Mathis, A., Mamidanna, P., Cury, K. M., Abe, T., Murthy, V. N., Mathis, M. W., et al. (2018). DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1281–1289. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y
Pavlov, P. I. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
Pellman, B. A., Kim, E., Reilly, M., Kashima, J., Motch, O., Horacio, O., et al. (2015). Time-specific fear acts as a non-photic entraining stimulus of circadian rhythms in rats. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–13. doi: 10.1038/srep14916
Pellman, B. A., Schuessler, B. P., Tellakat, M., and Kim, J. J. (2017). Sexually dimorphic risk mitigation strategies in rats. eNeuro 4:ENEURO.0288-16.2017. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0288-16.2017
Pellow, S., Chopin, P., File, S. E., and Briley, M. (1985). Validation of open: closed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat. J. Neurosci. Methods 14, 149–167. doi: 10.1016/0165-0270(85)90031-7
Schuessler, B. P., Zambetti, P. R., Kukuoka, K. M., Kim, E. J., and Kim, J. J. (2020). The risky closed economy: a holistic, longitudinal approach to studying fear and anxiety in rodents. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 14:594568. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.594568
Segalin, C., Williams, J., Karigo, T., Hui, M., Zelikowsky, M., Sun, J. J., et al. (2020). The Mouse Action Recognition System (MARS): a software pipeline for automated analysis of social behaviors in mice. bioRxiv [Preprint]. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.26.222299
Tamashiro, K. L., Nguyen, M. M., and Sakai, R. R. (2005). Social stress: from rodents to primates. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 26, 27–40. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2005.03.001
Touma, C., Palme, R., and Sachser, N. (2004). Analyzing corticosterone metabolites in fecal samples of mice: a noninvasive technique to monitor stress hormones. Horm. Behav. 45, 10–22. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2003.07.002
Tovote, P., Fadok, J. P., and Lüthi, A. (2015). Neuronal circuits for fear and anxiety. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 16, 317–331. doi: 10.1038/nrn3945
Wilensky, A. E., Schafe, G. E., and LeDoux, J. E. (2000). The amygdala modulates memory consolidation of fear-motivated inhibitory avoidance learning but not classical fear conditioning. J. Neurosci. 20, 7059–7066. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-18-07059.2000
Keywords: fear, anxiety, decision-making, methods, ethology
Citation: Scheidwasser N, Faggella M, Kozlova E and Sandi C (2021) Commentary: The Risky Closed Economy: A Holistic, Longitudinal Approach to Studying Fear and Anxiety in Rodents. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 15:664941. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.664941
Received: 06 February 2021; Accepted: 03 March 2021;
Published: 25 March 2021.
Edited by:
João J. Cerqueira, University of Minho, PortugalReviewed by:
Chong Chen, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, JapanIgor Branchi, National Institute of Health (ISS), Italy
Copyright © 2021 Scheidwasser, Faggella, Kozlova and Sandi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Carmen Sandi, carmen.sandi@epfl.ch