Neonatal treatment with lipopolysaccharide differentially affects adult anxiety responses in the light–dark test and taste neophobia test in male and female rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal administration of the bacterial cell wall component, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) has been shown to alter a variety of behavioural and physiological processes in the adult rat, including altering adult anxiety-like behaviour. Research conducted to date, however, has produced conflicting findings with some results demonstrating increases in adult anxiety-like behaviour while others report decreases or no changes in anxiety-like behaviour. Thus, the current study conducted additional evaluation of the effects of neonatal LPS exposure on adult anxiety-like behaviours by comparing the behavioural outcomes in the more traditional light-dark test, together with the less common hyponeophagia to sucrose solution paradigm. Male and female Long-Evans rats were treated systemically with either LPS (50μg/kg) or saline (0.9%) on postnatal days 3 and 5. Animals were then tested in the light-dark apparatus on postnatal day 90 for 30min. Next, following 5 days of habituation to distilled water delivery in Lickometer drinking boxes, animal were tested for neophagia to a 10% sucrose solution (0.3M) for 30min daily on postnatal days 96 and 97. In the light-dark test, neonatal LPS treatment decreased adult anxiety-like behaviour in females, but not males. In contrast, neonatal exposure to LPS did not influence adult anxiety-like behaviour as measured by hyponeophagia, but altered the licking patterns of drinking displayed towards a novel, palatable sucrose solution in adult males and females, in a manner that may reflect a decrease in situational anxiety. The current study supports the idea that neonatal LPS treatment results in highly specific alterations of adult anxiety-like behaviour, the nature of which seems to depend not only on the measure of anxiety behaviour used, but also possibly, on the degree of anxiety experienced during the behavioural test.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".