Concordance and incongruence in preclinical anxiety models: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Farhan Mohammad, Joses Ho, Jia Hern Woo, Chun Lei Lim, Dennis Jun Jie Poon, Bhumika Lamba, Adam Claridge-Chang*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rodent defense behavior assays have been widely used as preclinical models of anxiety to study possibly therapeutic anxiety-reducing interventions. However, some proposed anxiety-modulating factors – genes, drugs and stressors – have had discordant effects across different studies. To reconcile the effect sizes of purported anxiety factors, we conducted systematic review and meta-analyses of the literature on ten anxiety-linked interventions, as examined in the elevated plus maze, open field and light-dark box assays. Diazepam, 5-HT1A receptor gene knockout and overexpression, SERT gene knockout and overexpression, pain, restraint, social isolation, corticotropin-releasing hormone and Crhr1 were selected for review. Eight interventions had statistically significant effects on rodent anxiety, while Htr1a overexpression and Crh knockout did not. Evidence for publication bias was found in the diazepam, Htt knockout, and social isolation literatures. The Htr1a and Crhr1 results indicate a disconnect between preclinical science and clinical research. Furthermore, the meta-analytic data confirmed that genetic SERT anxiety effects were paradoxical in the context of the clinical use of SERT inhibitors to reduce anxiety.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)504-529
Number of pages26
JournalNeuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Volume68
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Anxiety
  • Behavior
  • Corticotropin releasing hormone
  • Defense
  • Isolation
  • Meta-analysis
  • Pain
  • Receptor
  • Rodent
  • Serotonin
  • Stress
  • Transporter

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Concordance and incongruence in preclinical anxiety models: Systematic review and meta-analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this