Abstract

Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that - in addition to jumping, and rearing - is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveal a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.

Data availability

Raw images and observer judgments are freely available: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HKMUUN

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amanda Chu

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    For correspondence
    amanda.chu@bc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Nicholas T Gordon

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aleah M DuBois

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christa B Michel

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Katherine E Hanrahan

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. David C Williams

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stefano Anzellotti

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Michael A McDannald

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    For correspondence
    michael.mcdannald@bc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8525-1260

Funding

National Institutes of Health (MH117791)

  • Michael A McDannald

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All protocols were approved by the Boston College Animal Care and Use Committee and all experiments were carried out in accordance with the NIH guidelines regarding the care and use of rats for experimental procedures. The Boston College experimental protocol supporting these procedures is 2024-001.

Copyright

© 2024, Chu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,205
    views
  • 162
    downloads
  • 14
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Amanda Chu
  2. Nicholas T Gordon
  3. Aleah M DuBois
  4. Christa B Michel
  5. Katherine E Hanrahan
  6. David C Williams
  7. Stefano Anzellotti
  8. Michael A McDannald
(2024)
A fear conditioned cue orchestrates a suite of behaviors in rats
eLife 13:e82497.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82497

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82497

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Moritz Schloetter, Georg U Maret, Christoph J Kleineidam
    Research Article

    Neurons generate and propagate electrical pulses called action potentials which annihilate on arrival at the axon terminal. We measure the extracellular electric field generated by propagating and annihilating action potentials and find that on annihilation, action potentials expel a local discharge. The discharge at the axon terminal generates an inhomogeneous electric field that immediately influences target neurons and thus provokes ephaptic coupling. Our measurements are quantitatively verified by a powerful analytical model which reveals excitation and inhibition in target neurons, depending on position and morphology of the source-target arrangement. Our model is in full agreement with experimental findings on ephaptic coupling at the well-studied Basket cell-Purkinje cell synapse. It is able to predict ephaptic coupling for any other synaptic geometry as illustrated by a few examples.

    1. Neuroscience
    Ulrike Pech, Jasper Janssens ... Patrik Verstreken
    Research Article

    The classical diagnosis of Parkinsonism is based on motor symptoms that are the consequence of nigrostriatal pathway dysfunction and reduced dopaminergic output. However, a decade prior to the emergence of motor issues, patients frequently experience non-motor symptoms, such as a reduced sense of smell (hyposmia). The cellular and molecular bases for these early defects remain enigmatic. To explore this, we developed a new collection of five fruit fly models of familial Parkinsonism and conducted single-cell RNA sequencing on young brains of these models. Interestingly, cholinergic projection neurons are the most vulnerable cells, and genes associated with presynaptic function are the most deregulated. Additional single nucleus sequencing of three specific brain regions of Parkinson’s disease patients confirms these findings. Indeed, the disturbances lead to early synaptic dysfunction, notably affecting cholinergic olfactory projection neurons crucial for olfactory function in flies. Correcting these defects specifically in olfactory cholinergic interneurons in flies or inducing cholinergic signaling in Parkinson mutant human induced dopaminergic neurons in vitro using nicotine, both rescue age-dependent dopaminergic neuron decline. Hence, our research uncovers that one of the earliest indicators of disease in five different models of familial Parkinsonism is synaptic dysfunction in higher-order cholinergic projection neurons and this contributes to the development of hyposmia. Furthermore, the shared pathways of synaptic failure in these cholinergic neurons ultimately contribute to dopaminergic dysfunction later in life.