Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34048600›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience research2021

Digging behavior discrimination test to probe burrowing and exploratory digging in male and female mice.

Heather L Pond, Abigail T Heller, Brian M Gural, Olivia P McKissick, Molly K Wilkinson, M Chiara Manzini

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Intact corticostriatal function in aged system xTranslational psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather L PondDepartment of Pharmacology and Physiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Abigail T HellerDepartment of Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Child Health Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Brian M GuralDepartment of Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Child Health Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Olivia P McKissickDepartment of Pharmacology and Physiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Molly K WilkinsonDepartment of Pharmacology and Physiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
M Chiara ManziniDepartment of Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Child Health Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
George Washington University · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

Defining the molecular mechanisms of sex differences in cognitive functionR01NS105000 · NINDS · RBHS-ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI MANZINI, M. CHIARA · 2018 to 2022
$2.1M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS105000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digging behavior is often used to test motor function and repetitive behaviors in mice. Different digging paradigms have been developed for behaviors related to anxiety and compulsion in mouse lines generated to recapitulate genetic mutations leading to psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, the interpretation of these tests has been confounded by the difficulty of determining the motivation behind digging in mice. Digging is a naturalistic mouse behavior that can be focused toward different goals, that is foraging for food, burrowing for shelter, burying objects, or even for recreation as has been shown for dogs, ferrets, and human children. However, the interpretation of results from current testing protocols assumes the motivation behind the behavior often concluding that increased digging is a repetitive or compulsive behavior. We asked whether providing a choice between different types of digging activities would increase sensitivity to assess digging motivation. Here, we present a test to distinguish between burrowing and exploratory digging in mice. We found that mice prefer burrowing when the option is available. When food restriction was used to promote a switch from burrowing to exploration, males readily switched from burrowing to digging outside, while females did not. In addition, when we tested a model of intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder that had shown inconsistent results in the marble burying test, the Cc2d1a conditional knockout mouse, we found greatly reduced burrowing only in males. Our findings indicate that digging is a nuanced motivated behavior and suggest that male and female rodents may perform it differently.

Indexed as

Sex CharacteristicsAnimalsDiscrimination LearningExploratory BehaviorFemaleFood DeprivationMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Transgenicbehavioral analysisburrowingdiggingrepetitive behaviorsRRID:IMSR_CRL:27RRID:IMSR_JAX:005359RRID:IMSR_TAC:b6RRID:MGI:5449582

Identifiers

PMID34048600
PMCPMC9066774
OpenAlexW3164459432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.