Contrasting grooming phenotypes in three mouse strains markedly different in anxiety and activity (129S1, BALB/c and NMRI)

129S1/SvImJ (129S1), NMRI and BALB/c mice are widely used in behavioural research, demonstrating marked strain differences in their behavioural phenotypes. Grooming is a complex and essential ritual in the rodent behavioural repertoire with a general cephalocaudal progression (forepaws-nose-face-body-legs-tail and genitals). Various stressors as well as genetic manipulations have been reported to alter mouse grooming and its patterning, underlying the importance of analysis of grooming behaviours. Although strain differences between these mice have been assessed in many studies, no comparative analyses of their grooming have been performed. Here we show strain differences in spontaneous (novelty-induced) grooming between 129S1, NMRI and BALB/c mice. Overall, 129S1 mice demonstrated lower grooming activity and impaired microstructure (more interrupted bouts and incorrect transitions contrary to the cephalocaudal rule), accompanied by lower vertical exploration. In contrast, BALB/c and NMRI mice showed high vertical activity and unimpaired grooming microstructure, also exhibiting different grooming levels (BALB/c>NMRI). Our study suggests that contrasting grooming phenotypes in these mice may not be due to the strain differences in their sensory abilities, general activity levels, brain anatomy or aggressiveness, but rather reflect a complex interplay between anxiety, motor and displacement activity in these strains (hypoactive anxious phenotype in 129S1 mice, active anxious phenotype in BALB/c and non-anxious high displacement phenotype in NMRI mice). We suggest that ethological analysis of mouse grooming, such as that reported here, may be a useful tool in neurobehavioural research.

[1]  G. Griebel,et al.  Behavioral and neurochemical changes following predatory stress in mice , 2001, Neuropharmacology.

[2]  K. Berridge,et al.  Cortex, striatum and cerebellum: control of serial order in a grooming sequence , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  R. Williams,et al.  Anxiety-related behaviors in the elevated zero-maze are affected by genetic factors and retinal degeneration. , 2001, Behavioral neuroscience.

[4]  D. Wahlsten,et al.  Wheel running behavior is impaired by both surgical section and genetic absence of the mouse corpus callosum , 2002, Brain Research Bulletin.

[5]  M. Bogue,et al.  Acoustic startle and prepulse inhibition in 40 inbred strains of mice. , 2003, Behavioral neuroscience.

[6]  J. Crawley,et al.  The Effects of Anxiolytics and Other Agents on Rat Grooming Behavior a , 1988, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  In search of a better mouse test , 2003, Trends in Neurosciences.

[8]  Robert Lalonde,et al.  Grooming in Lurcher Mutant Mice , 1998, Physiology & Behavior.

[9]  P. Driscoll.  Genetically Defined Animal Models of Neurobehavioral Dysfunctions , 1992 .

[10]  M. Lassonde,et al.  Cognitive and sensori-motor functioning in the absence of the corpus callosum: Neuropsychological studies in callosal agenesis and callosotomized patients , 1994, Behavioural Brain Research.

[11]  S. File,et al.  Comparison of Adaptive Responses in Familiar and Novel Environments: Modulatory Factors , 1988, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  K. Zilles,et al.  Anxiety-related behavior and densities of glutamate, GABAA, acetylcholine and serotonin receptors in the amygdala of seven inbred mouse strains , 2003, Behavioural Brain Research.

[13]  B. Spruijt,et al.  Ethology and neurobiology of grooming behavior. , 1992, Physiological reviews.

[14]  H. Gershenfeld,et al.  An exploratory factor analysis of the Tail Suspension Test in 12 inbred strains of mice and an F2 intercross , 2003, Brain Research Bulletin.

[15]  Freeman Miller,et al.  Cerebral Palsy: A Complete Guide for Caregiving , 1995 .

[16]  E. Simpson,et al.  The dark phase improves genetic discrimination for some high throughput mouse behavioral phenotyping , 2004, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[17]  A. Kalueff,et al.  Grooming analysis algorithm for neurobehavioural stress research. , 2004, Brain research. Brain research protocols.

[18]  B Olivier,et al.  Behavioral and physiological effects of biotechnology procedures used for gene targeting in mice , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.

[19]  A. Kalueff,et al.  Contrasting grooming phenotypes in C57Bl/6 and 129S1/SvImJ mice , 2004, Brain Research.

[20]  R. E. Brown,et al.  Marked differences in olfactory sensitivity and apparent speed of forebrain neuroblast migration in three inbred strains of mice , 2003, Neuroscience.

[21]  B. Olivier,et al.  GABAA–benzodiazepine receptor complex ligands and stress-induced hyperthermia in singly housed mice , 2002, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[22]  Joanna Komorowska,et al.  Regulatory mechanisms underlying novelty-induced grooming in the laboratory rat , 2004, Behavioural Processes.

[23]  J. Roder,et al.  Survey of embryonic stem cell line source strains in the water maze reveals superior reversal learning of 129S6/SvEvTac mice , 2003, Behavioural Brain Research.

[24]  D. Wahlsten,et al.  Absence of the Corpus Callosum , 1992 .

[25]  José-Luis Díaz,et al.  Location response to a startling noise depends on the preferred grooming site in mice , 1983, Physiology & Behavior.

[26]  A. Moyaho,et al.  Grooming and yawning trace adjustment to unfamiliar environments in laboratory Sprague-Dawley rats (Rattus norvegicus). , 2002, Journal of comparative psychology.

[27]  D. Wahlsten,et al.  Increased Axon Number in the Anterior Commissure of Mice Lacking a Corpus Callosum , 1997, Experimental Neurology.

[28]  Jim J. Hagan,et al.  Use of SHIRPA and discriminant analysis to characterise marked differences in the behavioural phenotype of six inbred mouse strains , 1999, Behavioural Brain Research.

[29]  H. Lipp,et al.  Genetic background problems in the analysis of cognitive and neuronal changes in genetically modified mice , 2003, Clinical Neuroscience Research.

[30]  M. Geyer,et al.  Behavioral organization is independent of locomotor activity in 129 and C57 mouse strains 1 Published on the World Wide Web on 16 February 1999. 1 , 1999, Brain Research.

[31]  B D Sachs,et al.  The Development of Grooming and Its Expression in Adult Animals a , 1988, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Standardizing tests of mouse behavior: Reasons, recommendations, and reality , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.

[33]  Allan Collins,et al.  Behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains: implications and recommendations for molecular studies , 1997, Psychopharmacology.

[34]  J. C. Fentress,et al.  Natural syntax rules control action sequence of rats , 1987, Behavioural Brain Research.

[35]  D. Ding,et al.  The BALB/c mouse as an animal model for progressive sensorineural hearing loss , 1998, Hearing Research.

[36]  A. Kalueff,et al.  Increased anxiety in mice lacking vitamin D receptor gene , 2004, Neuroreport.

[37]  G. Geffen,et al.  Interhemispheric control of manual motor activity , 1994, Behavioural Brain Research.

[38]  J. Greer,et al.  Hoxb8 Is Required for Normal Grooming Behavior in Mice , 2002, Neuron.

[39]  Richard Paylor,et al.  Behavioral and physiological mouse assays for anxiety: a survey in nine mouse strains , 2002, Behavioural Brain Research.

[40]  M. Bourin,et al.  Appropriate use of ‘knockout’ mice as models of depression or models of testing the efficacy of antidepressants , 2001, Psychopharmacology.

[41]  C. Marsden,et al.  Repeated sensory contact with aggressive mice rapidly leads to an anticipatory increase in core body temperature and physical activity that precedes the onset of aversive responding , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[42]  G. Perrault,et al.  Differences in anxiety-related behaviours and in sensitivity to diazepam in inbred and outbred strains of mice , 2000, Psychopharmacology.

[43]  M. Kruk,et al.  Effect of environmental stressors on time course, variability and form of self-grooming in the rat: Handling, social contact, defeat, novelty, restraint and fur moistening , 1994, Behavioural Brain Research.

[44]  P. Vicens,et al.  Previous Training in the Water Maze Differential Effects in NMRI and C57BL Mice , 1999, Physiology & Behavior.

[45]  Valerie J. Bolivar,et al.  Inbred strain variation in contextual and cued fear conditioning behavior , 2001, Mammalian Genome.

[46]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Genotypic differences in ethanol sensitivity in two tests of motor incoordination. , 2003, Journal of applied physiology.

[47]  K. Berridge,et al.  Action sequencing is impaired in D1A‐deficient mutant mice , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[48]  C. Belzung,et al.  Differences in Drug-Induced Place Conditioning Between BALB/c and C57Bl/6 Mice , 2000, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[49]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Survey of 21 inbred mouse strains in two laboratories reveals that BTBR T/+ tf/tf has severely reduced hippocampal commissure and absent corpus callosum , 2003, Brain Research.

[50]  J. C. Fentress,et al.  Expressive Contexts, Fine Structure, and Central Mediation of Rodent Grooming a , 1988, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.