This study utilized the Noldus PhenoTyper Home Cage Monitoring system (HCM) to assess the behavioral and cognitive changes of experimental closed-head mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Seventy-nine adult male Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) mice were subjected to either a sham procedure or closed-head mTBI using the weight-drop model. Seven days post-injury, separate cohorts of mice underwent either a non-cognitive or a cognitive home cage assessment, a treadmill fatigue test, or the Open Field Test. mTBI significantly influenced habituation behavior and circadian wheel-running activity. Notably, mTBI mice exhibited an increased frequency of visits to the running wheel, but each visit was shorter than those of controls. No significant differences between the groups in discrimination or reversal learning performance were observed. However, during the reversal learning stage, mTBI mice performed similarly to their initial discrimination learning levels, suggesting an abnormally faster rate of reversal learning. Home cage monitoring is a valuable tool for studying the subtle effects of mTBI, complementing traditional assays. The automated evaluation of habituation to novel stimuli (e.g., novel environment) could serve as a potentially sensitive tool for assessing mTBI-associated behavioral deficits.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MaasAIR, FitzgeraldM, GaoG, et al.Traumatic brain injury over the past 20 years: research and clinical progress. Lancet Neurol, 2022; 21(9):768–770; doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(22)00307-6
2.
RabinowitzAR, WatanabeTK. Pharmacotherapy for treatment of cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms after mTBI. J Head Trauma Rehabil, 2020; 35(1):76–83; doi: 10.1097/htr.0000000000000537
3.
YamamotoS, LevinHS, ProughDS. Mild, moderate and severe: terminology implications for clinical and experimental traumatic brain injury. Curr Opin Neurol, 2018; 31(6):672–680; doi: 10.1097/wco.0000000000000624
4.
GrandhiR, TavakoliS, OrtegaC, et al.A review of chronic pain and cognitive, mood, and motor dysfunction following mild traumatic brain injury: complex, comorbid, and/or overlapping conditions?. Brain Sci, 2017; 7(12):160; doi: 10.3390/brainsci7120160
5.
AounR, RawalH, AttarianH, et al.Impact of traumatic brain injury on sleep: an overview. Nat Sci Sleep, 2019; 11:131–140; doi: 10.2147/NSS.S182158
6.
WickwireEM, WilliamsSG, RothT, et al.Sleep, sleep disorders, and mild traumatic brain injury. what we know and what we need to know: findings from a national working group. Neurotherapeutics, 2016; 13(2):403–417; doi: 10.1007/s13311-016-0429-3
7.
ShultzSR, McDonaldSJ, HaarCV, et al.The potential for animal models to provide insight into mild traumatic brain injury: translational challenges and strategies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2017; 76:396–414; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.014
8.
BodnarCN, RobertsKN, HigginsEK, et al.A systematic review of closed head injury models of mild traumatic brain injury in mice and rats. J Neurotrauma, 2019; 36(11):1683–1706; doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.6127
9.
QubtyD, FridK, Har-EvenM, et al.Nano-PSO administration attenuates cognitive and neuronal deficits resulting from traumatic brain injury. Molecules, 2022; 27(9):2725; doi: 10.3390/molecules27092725
10.
Richmond-HachamB, IzchakH, ElbaumT, et al.Sex-specific cognitive effects of mild traumatic brain injury to the frontal and temporal lobes. Exp Neurol, 2022; 352:114022; doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114022
11.
MilmanA, RosenbergA, WeizmanR, et al.Mild traumatic brain injury induces persistent cognitive deficits and behavioral disturbances in mice. J Neurotrauma, 2005; 22(9):1003–1010; doi: 10.1089/neu.2005.22.1003
12.
SchwarzboldML, RialD, De BemT, et al.Effects of traumatic brain injury of different severities on emotional, cognitive, and oxidative stress-related parameters in mice. J Neurotrauma, 2010; 27(10):1883–1893; doi: 10.1089/neu.2010.1318
13.
NamdarI, FeldmanR, GlazerS, et al.Motor effects of minimal traumatic brain injury in mice. J Mol Neurosci, 2019; 70(3):365–377; doi: 10.1007/s12031-019-01422-9
14.
MingroneA, KaffmanAA, KaffmanAA. The promise of automated home-cage monitoring in improving translational utility of psychiatric research in rodents. Front Neurosci, 2020; 14; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.618593
15.
GriecoF, BernsteinBJ, BiemansB, et al.Measuring behavior in the home cage: study design, applications, challenges, and perspectives. Front Behav Neurosci, 2021; 15; doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.735387
16.
KahnauP, MieskeP, WilzopolskiJ, et al.A systematic review of the development and application of home cage monitoring in laboratory mice and rats. BMC Biol, 2023; 21(1):256; doi: 10.1186/s12915-023-01751-7
17.
VoikarV, GaburroS. Three pillars of automated home-cage phenotyping of mice: novel findings, refinement, and reproducibility based on literature and experience. Front Behav Neurosci, 2020; 14; doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.575434
18.
PernoldK, RullmanE, UlfhakeB. Bouts of rest and physical activity in C57BL/6J mice. PLoS One, 2023; 18(6):e0280416; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280416
19.
GouldingEH, SchenkAK, JunejaP, et al.A robust automated system elucidates mouse home cage behavioral structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2008; 105(52):20575–20582; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809053106.
VuPA, TuckerLB, LiuJ, et al.Transient disruption of mouse home cage activities and assessment of orexin immunoreactivity following concussive- or blast-induced brain injury. Brain Res, 2018; 1700:138–151; doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2018.08.034
23.
ChenS, SiedhoffHR, ZhangH, et al.Low-intensity blast induces acute glutamatergic hyperexcitability in mouse hippocampus leading to long-term learning deficits and altered expression of proteins involved in synaptic plasticity and serine protease inhibitors. Neurobiol Dis, 2022; 165:105634; doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2022.105634
24.
SiedhoffHR, ChenS, BalderramaA, et al.Long-Term effects of low-intensity blast non-inertial brain injury on anxiety-like behaviors in mice: home-cage monitoring assessments. Neurotrauma Rep, 2022; 3(1):27–38; doi: 10.1089/neur.2021.0063
25.
TseitlinL, Richmond-HachamB, VitaA, et al.Measuring anxiety-like behavior in a mouse model of mTBI: Assessment in standard and home cage assays. Front Behav Neurosci, 2023; 17; doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1140724
26.
KimJE, NamJH, ChoJ-Y, et al.Annual tendency of research papers used ICR mice as experimental animals in biomedical research fields. Lab Anim Res, 2017; 33(2):171–178; doi: 10.5625/lar.2017.33.2.171
27.
BaoT, MiaoW, HanJ, et al.Spontaneous running wheel improves cognitive functions of mouse associated with {miRNA} expressional alteration in hippocampus following traumatic brain injury. J Mol Neurosci, 2014; 54(4):622–629; doi: 10.1007/s12031-014-0344-1
28.
ZoharO, SchreiberS, GetslevV, et al.Closed-head minimal traumatic brain injury produces long-term cognitive deficits in mice. Neuroscience, 2003; 118(4):949–955; doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(03)00048-4
29.
DoughertyJP, SpringerDA, GershengornMC. The Treadmill Fatigue Test: a simple, high-throughput assay of fatigue-like behavior for the mouse. J Vis Exp, 2016;(111); doi: 10.3791/54052-v
30.
HallCS. Emotional behavior in the rat. I. Defecation and urination as measures of individual differences in emotionality. J Comp Psychol, 1934; 18(3):385–403; doi: 10.1037/H0071444
31.
FuochiS, RigamontiM, IannelloF, et al.Phenotyping spontaneous locomotor activity in inbred and outbred mouse strains by using Digital Ventilated Cages. Lab Anim (NY), 2021; 50(8):215–223; doi: 10.1038/s41684-021-00793-0
32.
LoosM, KoopmansB, AartsE, et al.Sheltering behavior and locomotor activity in 11 genetically diverse common inbred mouse strains using home-cage monitoring. PLoS One, 2014; 9(9):e108563; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108563
33.
HobsonL, BainsRS, GreenawayS, et al.Phenotyping in mice using continuous home cage monitoring and ultrasonic vocalization recordings. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol, 2020; 10(3); doi: 10.1002/CPMO.80
34.
KyriakouEI, NguyenHP, HombergJR, et al.Home-cage anxiety levels in a transgenic rat model for Spinocerebellar ataxia type 17 measured by an approach-avoidance task: the light spot test. J Neurosci Methods, 2018; 300:48–58; doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.08.012
35.
SloinHE, BikovskiL, LeviA, et al.Hybrid offspring of C57BL/6J mice exhibit improved properties for neurobehavioral research. eNeuro, 2022; 9(4):ENEURO.0221-22.2022; doi: 10.1523/eneuro.0221-22.2022
36.
BatesD, MächlerM, BolkerBM, et al.Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw, 2015; 67(1):1–48; doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
MayerJ. Use of behavior analysis to recognize pain in small mammals. Lab Anim (NY), 2007; 36(6):43–48; doi: 10.1038/laban0607-43
39.
BolivarVJ. Intrasession and intersession habituation in mice: from inbred strain variability to linkage analysis. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 2009; 92(2):206–214; doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2009.02.002
40.
RankinCH, AbramsT, BarryRJ, et al.Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 2009; 92(2):135–138; doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.012
41.
LeussisMP, BolivarVJ. Habituation in rodents: a review of behavior, neurobiology, and genetics. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2006; 30(7):1045–1064; doi: 10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2006.03.006
42.
BrownL, FiskA, PothecaryC, et al.Telling the time with a broken clock: quantifying circadian disruption in animal models. Biology (Basel), 2019; 8(1):18; doi: 10.3390/biology8010018
43.
RhodesJS, GammieSC, GarlandTJ. Neurobiology of mice selected for high voluntary wheel-running activity. Integr Comp Biol, 2005; 45(3):438–455; doi: 10.1093/icb/45.3.438
44.
SonGH, ChungS, GeumD, et al.Hyperactivity and alteration of the midbrain dopaminergic system in maternally stressed male mice offspring. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2007; 352(3):823–829; doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.11.104
45.
BaskinB, LeeSJ, SkillenE, et al.Repetitive blast exposure increases appetitive motivation and behavioral inflexibility in male mice. Front Behav Neurosci, 2021; 15; doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.792648
46.
NicholsJN, HaganKL, FloydCL. Evaluation of touchscreen chambers to assess cognition in adult mice: effect of training and mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma, 2017; 34(17):2481–2494; doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.4998
47.
IzquierdoA, BrigmanJL, RadkeAK, et al.The neural basis of reversal learning: An updated perspective. Neuroscience, 2017; 345:12–26; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.03.021
48.
RaghavaN, DasBC, RaySK. Neuroprotective effects of estrogen in CNS injuries: insights from animal models. Neurosci Neuroeconomics, 2017; 6:15–29; doi: 10.2147/nan.s105134
49.
SpringS, LerchJP, HenkelmanRM. Sexual dimorphism revealed in the structure of the mouse brain using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage, 2007; 35(4):1424–1433; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.023
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
