Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20431541›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2010

The learned safety paradigm as a mouse model for neuropsychiatric research.

Daniela D Pollak, Francisco J Monje, Gert Lubec

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A role for miR-132 in learned safety.Scientific reports · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Role of the mesolimbic dopamine system in relief learning.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniela D PollakDepartment of Physiology, Center for Physiology and Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. daniela.pollak@meduniwien.ac.at
Francisco J Monje
Gert Lubec

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fear conditioning is one of the most widely used animal models for studying the neurobiological basis of fear and anxiety states. Conditioned inhibition of fear (or learned safety), however, is a relatively unexplored behavioral paradigm addressing the aspect of regulation of fear, which is central to survival and mental health. Although fear conditioning is achieved by pairing a previously neutral, conditioned stimulus (CS) with an aversive, unconditioned stimulus (US), learned safety training consists of a series of explicitly unpaired CS-US presentations. Animals are trained for 3 d, one session per day, and learn to associate the CS with protection from the impending danger of the aversive events. The entire procedure can be completed within 7 d. The protocol has been successfully used to study the molecular underpinnings of a behavioral intervention for depression. This paradigm complements currently used animal tests in neuropsychiatric research addressing the dysregulation of emotional behaviors in genetic, pharmacological or environmental mouse models of human affective disorders.

Indexed as

FearLearningNeuropsychological TestsAnimalsElectroshockMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BL

Identifiers

PMID20431541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.