Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Review

Behavioral models in psychopathology: epistemic and semantic considerations

Authors: Caio Maximino, Franz Josef van der Staay

Published in: Behavioral and Brain Functions | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

The use of animals in neurosciences has a long history. It is considered indispensable in areas in which “translational” research is deemed invaluable, such as behavioral pharmacology and comparative psychology. Animal models are being used in pharmacology and genetics to screen for treatment targets, and in the field of experimental psychopathology to understand the neurobehavioral underpinnings of a disorder and of its putative treatment. The centrality of behavioral models betrays the complexity of the epistemic and semantic considerations which are needed to understand what a model is. In this review, such considerations are made, and the breadth of model building and evaluation approaches is extended to include theoretical considerations on the etiology of mental disorders. This expansion is expected to help improve the validity of behavioral models and to increase their translational value. Moreover, the role of theory in improving construct validity creates the need for behavioral scientists to fully engage this process.

There are many different senses of the term “model” that can bring confusion. For example, the diathesis-stress theory is normally called “diathesis-stress model”, and “model” here has a very different meaning—that of a theoretical model. In an attempt to dispel the confusion, we reserve the term “model” to refer to behavioral models.

Anderzhanova E, Kirmeier T, Wotjak CT. Animal models in psychiatric research: the RDoC system as a new framework for endophenotype-oriented translational neuroscience. Neurobiol Stress. 2017;7:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2017.03.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Atanasova N. Validating animal models. Theoria. 2015;30:163–81. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.12761.CrossRef

Baiamonte M, Brennan CH, Vinson GP. Sustained action of developmental ethanol exposure on the cortisol response to stress in zebrafish larvae and adults. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0124488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124488.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Baiamonte M, Parker MO, Vinson GP, Brennan CH. Sustained effects of developmental exposure to ethanol on Zebrafish anxiety-like behaviour. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0148425. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148425.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Baird D. Thing knowledge: a philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2004.

Bakshi VP, Kalin NH. Animal models and endophenotypes of anxiety and stress disorders. In: Davis KL, Charney D, Coyle JT, Nemeroff C, editors. Neuropsychopharmacology. The fifth generation of progress. New York: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 2002. p. 883–900.

Belsky J, Pluess M. Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:885–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376.CrossRefPubMed

Belzung C, Lemoine M. Criteria of validity for animal models of psychiatric disorders: focus on anxiety disorders and depression. Biol Mood Anxiety Disord. 2011;1:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-5380-1-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Blanchard DC, Summers CH, Blanchard RJ. The role of behavior in translational models for psychopathology: functionality and dysfunctional behaviors. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:1567–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Blaser R, Heyser C. Spontaneous object recognition: a promising approach to the comparative study of memory. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;9:183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00183.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Braff DL, Freedman R. Endophenotypes in studies of the genetics of schizophrenia. In: Davis KL, Charney D, Coyle JT, Nemeroff C, editors. Neuropsychopharmacology. The fifth generation of progress. New York: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 2002. p. 703–16.

12.

Brunner D, Nestler E, Leahy E. In need of high-throughput behavioral systems. Drug Discov Today. 2002;7:107–12.CrossRef

13.

Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM. The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learn Memory. 2008;15:516–23. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.987808.CrossRef

14.

Cachat J, Stewart A, Utterback E, Hart P, Gaikwad S, Wong K, Kalueff AV. Three-dimensional neurophenotyping of adult zebrafish behavior. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e17597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017597.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Cairncross KD, Cox B, Forster C, Wren AF. A new model for the detection of antidepressant drugs: Olfactory bulbectomy in the rat compared with existing models. J Pharmacol Methods. 1978;1:131–43.CrossRef

16.

Cassano GB, Rossi NB, Pini S. Comorbidity of depression and anxiety. In: Kasper S, den Boer JA, Ad Sitsen JM, editors. Handbook of depression and anxiety: second edition, revised and expanded (Segunda, pp. 69–90). Nova Iorque: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2003. p. 69–90.

17.

Crabbe JC, Morris RGM. Festina lente: late-night thoughts on high-throughput screening of mouse behavior. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:1175–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1343.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cuthbert BN. The RDoC framework: facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology. World Psychiatry. 2014;13(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2013;11:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Degeling C, Johnson J. Evaluating animal models: some taxonomic worries. J Med Philos. 2013;38:91–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jht004.CrossRefPubMed

21.

de Visser L, van den Bos R, Kuurman WW, Kas MJH, Spruijt BM. Novel approach to the behavioural characterization of inbred mice: automated home cage observations. Genes Brain Behav. 2006;5:458–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00181.x.CrossRefPubMed

22.

de Visser L, van den Bos R, Spruijt BM. Automated home cage observations as a tool to measure the effects of wheel running on cage floor locomotion. Behav Brain Res. 2005;160(2):382–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2004.12.004.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Einat H. Modelling facets of mania—new directions related to the notion of endophenotypes. J Psychopharmacol. 2006;20:714–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881106060241.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Einat H, Belmaker RH, Manji HK. New approaches to modeling bipolar disorder. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2003;37:47–63.PubMed

25.

Ellis LD, Soanes KH. A larval zebrafish model of bipolar disorder as a screening platform for neuro-therapeutics. Behav Brain Res. 2012;233:450–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.05.043.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ennaceur A, Michalikova S, Chazot PL. Do rats really express neophobia towards novel objects? Experimental evidence from exposure to novelty and to an object recognition task in an open space and an enclosed space. Behav Brain Res. 2009;197:417–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.10.007.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Fried E, van Borkulo CD, Cramer AOJ, Boschloo L, Schoevers RA, Borsboom D. Mental disorders as networks of problems: a review of recent insights. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1319-z.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Frigg R. Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria. 2006;55:37–53.

29.

Frigg R, Reiss J. The philosophy of simulation: hot new issues or same old stew? Synthese. 2009;169:593–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9438-z.CrossRef

30.

Gerlai R. High-throughput behavioral screens: The first step towards finding genes involved in vertebratebrain function using zebrafish. Molecules. 2010;15:2609–22.CrossRef

31.

Geyer MA, Markou A. The role of preclinical models in the development of psychotropic drugs. In: Davis KL, Charney DS, Coyle JT, Nemeroff CB, editors. Neuropsychopharmacology. The fifth generation of progress. 5th ed. New York: Raven Press/American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 2002. p. 445–55.

32.

Glas G. A conceptual history of anxiety and depression. In: Kasper S, den Boer JA, Ad Sitsen JM, editors. Handbook of depression and anxiety: second edition, revised and expanded (Segunda ed, pp. 1–47). Nova Iorque: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2003.

33.

Gottesman II, Gould TD. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:636–45.CrossRef

34.

Gould TD, Gottesman II. Psychiatric endophenotypes and the development of valid animal models. Genes Brain Behav. 2006;5:113–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00186.x.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Gouveia A Jr, de Brito TM. Animal models of psychopathology and its relation to clinical practice. In: Gargiulo PÁ, Mesones-Arroyo HL, editors. Psychiatry and neuroscience update. Bridging the divide. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 305–9.CrossRef

36.

Hau J. Animal models. In: Hau J, van Hoosier GL, editors. Handbook of laboratory animal science, vol. 2. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2003. p. 1–9.

37.

Hesse M. Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed and Ward; 1963.

38.

Ingram RE, Luxton DD. Vulnerability-stress models. In: Hankin BL, Abela JRZ, editors. Development of psychopathology: a vulnerability stress perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2005. p. 32–46.CrossRef

39.

Insel T, Cuthbert B, Garvey M, Heinssen R, Pine DS, Quinn K, Sanislow C, Wang P. Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167:748–51. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379.CrossRef

40.

Jhuang H, Garrote E, Yu X, Khilnani V, Poggio T, Steele AD, Serre T. Automated home-cage behavioural phenotyping of mice. Nat Commun. 2010;1:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1064.CrossRef

41.

Kalueff AV, LaPorte JL, Murphy DL, Sufka K. Hybridizing behavioral models: a possible solution to some problems in neurophenotyping research? Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008;32:1172–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.12.010.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Kalueff AV, Ren-Patterson RF, LaPorte JL, Murphy DL. Domain interplay concept in animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders: a new strategy for high-throughput neurophenotyping research. Behav Brain Res. 2008;188:243–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.11.011.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Kemp AH, Felmingham KL. The psychology and neuroscience of depression and anxiety: towards an integrative model of emotion disorders. Psychol Neurosci. 2008;1:177–81. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2008.2.010.CrossRef

44.

Kim CH, Hvoslef-Eide M, Nilsson SRO, Johnson MR, Herbert BR, Robbins TW, Saksida LM, Mar AC. The continuous performance test (rCPT) for mice: a novel operant touchscreen test of attentional function. Psychopharmacology. 2015;232:3947–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-015-4081-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Krackow S, Vannoni E, Codita A, Mohammed AH, Cirulli F, Branchi I, Lipp H-P. Consistent behavioral phenotype differences between inbred mouse strains in the IntelliCage. Genes Brain Behav. 2010;9(7):722–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2010.00606.x.CrossRefPubMed

46.

LaFollette H, Shanks N. Two models of models in biomedical research. Philos Q. 1995;45:141–60.CrossRef

47.

LaPorte JL, Egan RJ, Hart PC, Bergner CL, Cachat JM, Canavello PR, Kalueff AV. Qui non proficit, deficit: experimental models for “integrative” research of affective disorders. J Affect Disord. 2010;121:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.04.010.CrossRefPubMed

48.

LaPorte JL, Ren-Patterson RF, Murphy DL, Kalueff AV. Refining psychiatric genetics: from “mouse psychiatry” to understanding complex human disorders. Behav Pharmacol. 2008;19:377–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0b013e32830dc09b.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Lipp HP. High-throughput and automated behavioural screening of normal and genetically modified mice. Bus Brief Future Drug Discov. 2005:1–5.

50.

Maximino C, Carvalho CM, Morato S. Discrimination of anxiety- versus panic-like behavior in the wall lizard Tropidurus oreadicus. Psychol Neurosci. 2014;7:227–31. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2014.020.CrossRef

51.

Maximino C, da Silva AWB, Araújo J, Lima MG, Miranda V, Puty B, Benzecry R, Picanço-Diniz DL, Gouveia A Jr, Herculano AM. Fingerprinting of psychoactive drugs in zebrafish anxiety-like behaviors. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e103943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103943.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Nelson NC. Modeling mouse, human, and discipline: epistemic scaffolds in animal behavior genetics. Soc Stud Sci. 2012;43:3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712463815.CrossRef

53.

Olivier B, Zethof T, Pattij T, van Boogaert M, van Oorschot R, Leahy C, et al. Stress-induced hyperthermiaand anxiety: Pharmacological validation. Eur J Pharmacol. 2003;463:117–32.CrossRef

54.

Panksepp J. Emotional endophenotypes in evolutionary psychiatry. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2006;30:774–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Phillips J. Scientific validity in psychiatry. In: Zachar P, St. Stoyanov D, Aragona M, Jablensky A, editors. Alternative perspectives on psychiatric validation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 164–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199680733.003.0010.CrossRef

56.

Rodgers RJ, Cao B-J, Dalvi A, Holmes A. Animal models of anxiety: an ethological perspective. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1997;30:289–304.CrossRef

57.

Roelofs S, Boleij H, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ. Making decisions under ambiguity: judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016;10(119):16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119.CrossRef

58.

Roelofs S, van der Staay FJ. Judgment bias. In: Vonk J, Shackelford TK, editors. Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2017. p. 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1046-1.CrossRef

59.

Roy V, Chapillon P. Further evidences that risk assessment and object exploration behaviours are useful to evaluate emotional reactivity in rodents. Behav Brain Res. 2004;154:439–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2004.03.010.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Schaffner KF. Extrapolation from animal models: social life, sex and super models. In: Machamer PK, Grush R, McLaughlin P, editors. Theory and method in the neurosciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2001. p. 200–30.

61.

Schaefer AT, Claridge-Chang A. The surveillance state of behavioral automation. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012;22:170–6.CrossRef

62.

Shapiro KJ. Animal models of human psychology: critique of science, ethics, and policy. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber; 1998.

63.

Sjoberg EA. Logical fallacies in animal model research. Behav Brain Funct. 2017;13:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12993-017-0121-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Snyder SH. Amphetamine psychosis: a “model” schizophrenia mediated by catecholamines. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130:61–7. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.130.1.61.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Sousa N, Almeida OFX, Wotjak CT. A hitchhiker’s guide to behavioral analysis in laboratory rodents. Genes Brain Behav. 2006;5(Suppl 2):5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00228.x.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Stewart AM, Kalueff AV. Developing better and more valid models of brain disorders. Behav Brain Res. 2015;276:28–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.024.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Tecott LH, Nestler EJ. Neurobehavioral assessment in the information age. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:462–6.CrossRef

68.

Torrejais JCM, Rosa CCM, Boerngen-Lacerda R, Andreatini R. The elevated T-maze as a measure of two types of defensive reactions: a factor analysis. Brain Res Bull. 2008;76:376–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.03.016.CrossRefPubMed

69.

van de Weerd HA, Bulthuis RJA, Bergman AF, Schlingmann F, Tolboom J, van Loo PLP, et al. Validation ofa new system for the automatic registration of behaviour in mice and rats. Behav Processes. 2001;53:11–20.CrossRef

70.

van der Staay FJ. Animal models of behavioral dysfunctions: basic concepts and classifications, and an evaluation strategy. Brain Res Rev. 2006;52:131–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.01.006.CrossRefPubMed

71.

van der Staay FJ, Arndt SS, Nordquist RE. Evaluation of animal models of neurobehavioral disorders. Behav Brain Funct. 2009;5:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-5-11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

72.

van der Staay FJ, Arndt SS, Nordquist RE. The standardization-generalization dilemma: a way out. Genes Brain Behav. 2010;9:849–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2010.00628.x.CrossRefPubMed

73.

van der Staay FJ, Gieling ET, Espitia Pinzón N, Nordquist RE, Ohl F. The appetitively motivated “cognitive” holeboard: a family of complex spatial discrimination tasks for assessing learning and memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:379–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.07.008.CrossRefPubMed

74.

van der Staay FK, Nordquist RE, Arndt SS. Large farm animal models of human neurobehavioral and psychiatric disorders: methodological and practical considerations. In: Conn PM, editor. Animal models for the study of human disease. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2017. p. 71–100.CrossRef

75.

Wall PM, Messier C. Methodological and conceptual issues in the use of the elevated plus-maze as a psychological measurement instrument of animal anxiety-like behavior. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2001;25:275–86.CrossRef

76.

Warnick JE, Huang CJ, Acevedo EO, Sufka KJ. Modelling the anxiety-depression continuum in chicks. J Psychopharmacol. 2009;23:143–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881108089805.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Warnick JE, LaPorte JL, Kalueff AV. Domain interplay in mice and men: new possibilities for the “natural kinds” theory of emotion. New Ideas Psychol. 2011;29:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.01.001.CrossRef

78.

Willner P. Validation criteria for animal models of human mental disorders: learned helplessness as a paradigm case. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1986;10:677–90.CrossRef

79.

Willner P. Methods for assessing the validity of animal models of human psychopathology. In: Boulton AA, Baker GB, Martin-Iverson MT, editors. Animal models in psychiatry. Clifton: Humana Press; 1991. p. 1–23.

80.

Wilson KS, Tucker CS, Al-Dujaili S, Holmes MC, Hadoke PWF, Kenyon CJ, Denvir MA. Early-life glucocorticoids programme behaviour and metabolism in adulthood in zebrafish. J Endocrinol. 2016;230:125–42. https://doi.org/10.1530/JOE-15-0376.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Behavioral models in psychopathology: epistemic and semantic considerations
Authors: Caio Maximino
Franz Josef van der Staay
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Behavioral and Brain Functions / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1744-9081
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12993-019-0152-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Behavioral models in psychopathology: epistemic and semantic considerations

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Traumatic injury in female Drosophila melanogaster affects the development and induces behavioral abnormalities in the offspring

Age-related changes in neuroinflammation and prepulse inhibition in offspring of rats treated with Poly I:C in early gestation

Neuroprotective effects of Withania somnifera in BPA induced-cognitive dysfunction and oxidative stress in mice

Studying alcohol use disorder using Drosophila melanogaster in the era of ‘Big Data’

Age and cognitive status dependent differences in blood steroid and thyroid hormone concentrations in intact male rats

Impaired innate and conditioned social behavior in adult C57Bl6/J mice prenatally exposed to chlorpyrifos