Animal models of anxiety

Logical fallacies in animal model research

Background

Animal models of human behavioural deficits involve conducting experiments on animals with the hope of gaining new knowledge that can be applied to humans. This paper aims to address risks, biases, and fallacies associated with drawing conclusions when conducting experiments on animals, with focus on animal models of mental illness.

Conclusions

Researchers using animal models are susceptible to a fallacy known as false analogy, where inferences based on assumptions of similarities between animals and humans can potentially lead to an incorrect conclusion. There is also a risk of false positive results when evaluating the validity of a putative animal model, particularly if the experiment is not conducted double-blind. It is further argued that animal model experiments are reconstructions of human experiments, and not replications per se, because the animals cannot follow instructions. This leads to an experimental setup that is altered to accommodate the animals, and typically involves a smaller sample size than a human experiment. Researchers on animal models of human behaviour should increase focus on mechanistic validity in order to ensure that the underlying causal mechanisms driving the behaviour are the same, as relying on face validity makes the model susceptible to logical fallacies and a higher risk of Type 1 errors. We discuss measures to reduce bias and risk of making logical fallacies in animal research, and provide a guideline that researchers can follow to increase the rigour of their experiments.

Are benzodiazepines really anxiolytic? Evidence from a 3D maze spatial navigation task

The effects of diazepam and chlordiazepoxide were assessed in a 3D maze which is a modification of an 8-arm radial maze. Each arm of the maze is attached to a bridge radiating from a central platform. Animals exposed for the first time to the maze do not venture beyond the line that separate a bridge from an arm. The prime criteria set for an anxiolytic effect is whether mice would increase the frequency of entries onto arms and increase arm/bridge entries ratio. C57 mice readily cross the line on first exposure and make more than 8 arm visits onto arms on second exposure, while other strains (CD-1 and Balb/c) hold back and rarely cross the line on first exposure and require more sessions to make more than 8 arm entries. An anxiolytic drug is expected to encourage intermediate (CD-1) and high (Balb/c) anxiety mice to adventure onto the arms of the maze and make more visits to the arms to comparable levels seen with low anxiety c57 mice. In the present report, administration of different doses of diazepam (0.625, 1.25, 2.5 and 5 mg kg(-1) i.p.) and chlordiazepoxide (5, 10 and 15 mg kg(-1) i.p.) did not reduce anxiety in animals, with the lowest dose of diazepam increasing motor activity in Balb/c and increasing anxiety in c57 mice while the highest doses of both diazepam (2.5 and 5 mg kg(-1) i.p.) and chlordiazepoxide (15 mg kg(-1) i.p.) induced mild sedation. Our results raise some concerns about the methodological foundations in the current assessment of anxiety and anxiolytic compounds both in animal and human studies.