Lack of anticipatory behavior in <i>Gpr88</i> knockout mice showed by automatized home cage phenotyping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mouse models are widely used to understand genetic bases of behavior. Traditional testing typically requires multiple experimental settings, captures only snapshots of behavior and involves human intervention. The recent development of automated home cage monitoring offers an alternative method to study mouse behavior in their familiar and social environment, and over weeks. Here, we used the IntelliCage system to test this approach for mouse phenotyping, and studied mice lacking Gpr88 that have been extensively studied using standard testing. We monitored mouse behavior over 22 days in 4 different phases. In the free adaptation phase, Gpr88 −/− mice showed delayed habituation to the home cage, and increased frequency of same corner returns behavior in their alternation pattern. In the following nose‐poke adaptation phase, non‐habituation continued, however, mutant mice acquired nose‐poke conditioning similar to controls. In the place learning and reversal phase, Gpr88 −/− mice developed preference for the water/sucrose corner with some delay, but did not differ from controls for reversal. Finally, in a fixed schedule‐drinking phase, control animals showed higher activity during the hour preceding water accessibility, and reduced activity after access to water was terminated. Mutant mice did not show this behavior, showing lack of anticipatory behavior. Our data therefore confirm hyperactivity, non‐habituation and altered exploratory behaviors that were reported previously. Learning deficits described in other settings were barely detectable, and a novel phenotype was discovered. Home cage monitoring therefore extends previous findings and shows yet another facet of GPR88 function that deserves further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".