Communication and social interaction in the cannabinoid‐type 1 receptor null mouse: Implications for autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Clinical and preclinical findings have suggested a role of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) in the etiopathology of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Previous mouse studies have investigated the role of ECS in several behavioral domains; however, none of them has performed an extensive assessment of social and communication behaviors, that is, the main core features of ASD. This study employed a mouse line lacking the primary endocannabinoid receptor ( CB1 r) and characterized ultrasonic communication and social interaction in CB1 −/− , CB1 +/− , and CB1 +/+ males and females. Quantitative and qualitative alterations in ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) were observed in CB1 null mice both during early development (i.e., between postnatal days 4 and 10), and at adulthood (i.e., at 3 months of age). Adult mutants also showed marked deficits in social interest in the three‐chamber test and social investigation in the direct social interaction test. These behavioral alterations were mostly observed in both sexes and appeared more marked in CB1 −/− than CB1 +/− mutant mice. Importantly, the adult USV alterations could not be attributed to differences in anxiety or sensorimotor abilities, as assessed by the elevated plus maze and auditory startle tests. Our findings demonstrate the role of CB1 r in social communication and behavior, supporting the use of the CB1 full knockout mouse in preclinical research on these ASD‐relevant core domains. Lay Summary The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is important for brain development and neural function and is therefore likely to be involved in neurodevelopmental disorders such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Here we investigated changes in social behavior and communication, which are core features of ASD, in male and female mice lacking the chief receptor of this system. Our results show that loss of this receptor results in several changes in social behavior and communication both during early development and in adulthood, thus supporting the role of the ECS in these ASD‐core behavioral domains.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".