Cargando…

Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is more prevalent in women than men. PTSD is characterized by overgeneralization of fear to innocuous stimuli and involves impaired inhibition of learned fear by cues that predict safety. While evidence indicates that learned fear inhibition through extinction d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Day, Harriet L.L., Reed, Molly M., Stevenson, Carl W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academic Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27423522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.07.014
_version_ 1782449199083683840
author Day, Harriet L.L.
Reed, Molly M.
Stevenson, Carl W.
author_facet Day, Harriet L.L.
Reed, Molly M.
Stevenson, Carl W.
author_sort Day, Harriet L.L.
collection PubMed
description Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is more prevalent in women than men. PTSD is characterized by overgeneralization of fear to innocuous stimuli and involves impaired inhibition of learned fear by cues that predict safety. While evidence indicates that learned fear inhibition through extinction differs in males and females, less is known about sex differences in fear discrimination and safety learning. Here we examined auditory fear discrimination in male and female rats. In Experiment 1A, rats underwent 1–3 days of discrimination training consisting of one tone predicting threat (CS+; presented with footshock) and another tone predicting safety (CS−; presented alone). Females, but not males, discriminated between the CS+ and CS− after one day of training. After 2–3 days of training, however, males discriminated whereas females generalized between the CS+ and CS−. In Experiment 1B, females showed enhanced anxiety-like behaviour and locomotor activity in the open field, although these results were unlikely to explain the sex differences in fear discrimination. In Experiment 2, we found no differences in shock sensitivity between males and females. In Experiment 3, males and females again discriminated and generalized, respectively, after three days of training. Moreover, fear generalization in females resulted from impaired safety learning, as shown by a retardation test. Whereas subsequent fear conditioning to the previous CS− retarded learning in males, females showed no such retardation. These results suggest that, while females show fear discrimination with limited training, they show fear generalization with extended training due to impaired safety learning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4993817
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Academic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49938172016-09-01 Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety Day, Harriet L.L. Reed, Molly M. Stevenson, Carl W. Neurobiol Learn Mem Article Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is more prevalent in women than men. PTSD is characterized by overgeneralization of fear to innocuous stimuli and involves impaired inhibition of learned fear by cues that predict safety. While evidence indicates that learned fear inhibition through extinction differs in males and females, less is known about sex differences in fear discrimination and safety learning. Here we examined auditory fear discrimination in male and female rats. In Experiment 1A, rats underwent 1–3 days of discrimination training consisting of one tone predicting threat (CS+; presented with footshock) and another tone predicting safety (CS−; presented alone). Females, but not males, discriminated between the CS+ and CS− after one day of training. After 2–3 days of training, however, males discriminated whereas females generalized between the CS+ and CS−. In Experiment 1B, females showed enhanced anxiety-like behaviour and locomotor activity in the open field, although these results were unlikely to explain the sex differences in fear discrimination. In Experiment 2, we found no differences in shock sensitivity between males and females. In Experiment 3, males and females again discriminated and generalized, respectively, after three days of training. Moreover, fear generalization in females resulted from impaired safety learning, as shown by a retardation test. Whereas subsequent fear conditioning to the previous CS− retarded learning in males, females showed no such retardation. These results suggest that, while females show fear discrimination with limited training, they show fear generalization with extended training due to impaired safety learning. Academic Press 2016-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4993817/ /pubmed/27423522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.07.014 Text en © 2016 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Day, Harriet L.L.
Reed, Molly M.
Stevenson, Carl W.
Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
title Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
title_full Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
title_fullStr Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
title_full_unstemmed Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
title_short Sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
title_sort sex differences in discriminating between cues predicting threat and safety
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27423522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.07.014
work_keys_str_mv AT dayharrietll sexdifferencesindiscriminatingbetweencuespredictingthreatandsafety
AT reedmollym sexdifferencesindiscriminatingbetweencuespredictingthreatandsafety
AT stevensoncarlw sexdifferencesindiscriminatingbetweencuespredictingthreatandsafety