Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713255›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Evaluating pharmacological models of high and low anxiety in sheep.

Rebecca E Doyle, Caroline Lee, David M McGill, Michael Mendl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca E DoyleAnimal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, The University of Melbourne , Parkville , Australia ; Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University) , Wagga Wagga , Australia.
Caroline LeeAgriculture, CSIRO , Armidale, NSW , Australia.
David M McGillGraham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University) , Wagga Wagga , Australia.
Michael MendlSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol , Langford , United Kingdom.
Charles Sturt University · AUCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New tests of animal affect and welfare require validation in subjects experiencing putatively different states. Pharmacological manipulations of affective state are advantageous because they can be administered in a standardised fashion, and the duration of their action can be established and tailored to suit the length of a particular test. To this end, the current study aimed to evaluate a pharmacological model of high and low anxiety in an important agricultural and laboratory species, the sheep. Thirty-five 8-month-old female sheep received either an intramuscular injection of the putatively anxiogenic drug 1-(m-chlorophenyl)piperazine (mCPP; 1 mg/kg; n = 12), an intravenous injection of the putatively anxiolytic drug diazepam (0.1 mg/kg; n = 12), or acted as a control (saline intramuscular injection n = 11). Thirty minutes after the treatments, sheep were individually exposed to a variety of tests assessing their general movement, performance in a 'runway task' (moving down a raceway for a food reward), response to startle, and behaviour in isolation. A test to assess feeding motivation was performed 2 days later following administration of the drugs to the same animals in the same manner. The mCPP sheep had poorer performance in the two runway tasks (6.8 and 7.7 × slower respectively than control group; p < 0.001), a greater startle response (1.4 vs. 0.6; p = 0.02), a higher level of movement during isolation (9.1 steps vs. 5.4; p < 0.001), and a lower feeding motivation (1.8 × slower; p < 0.001) than the control group, all of which act as indicators of anxiety. These results show that mCPP is an effective pharmacological model of high anxiety in sheep. Comparatively, the sheep treated with diazepam did not display any differences compared to the control sheep. Thus we suggest that mCPP is an effective treatment to validate future tests aimed at assessing anxiety in sheep, and that future studies should include other subtle indicators of positive affective states, as well as dosage studies, so conclusions on the efficacy of diazepam as a model of low anxiety can be drawn.

Indexed as

Affective stateBehaviourDiazepammCPPWelfare

Identifiers

PMID26713255
PMCPMC4690367
OpenAlexW2221374466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.