Each session, the rat assigned to the escapable shock (ES) group (n = 23) was placed in the ‘master’ shuttle box with infrared sensors and the rat assigned to the inescapable shock (IS) group (n = 23) was placed in a ‘slave’ shuttle box devoid of sensors. Accordingly, whereas the ES rat was able to turn off the shock of both boxes by passing to the other side

of the ‘master’ box (controllable stress), the IS rat was shocked irrespective of its behavior (uncontrollable stress). One-way escape training consisted of seven daily sessions of 30 shocks (1 mA, 30 s) applied 1 min apart. The effectiveness of uncontrollable stress was assessed the day after the end of the escape training, in a two-way escape novel task (test session) carried out in a context-modified shuttle box with black adhesive tape on the walls and a pad with mint essence below the grid floor. Test sessions consisted of 30 shocks (1 mA, 10 s) applied 1 min apart. Crossings and one- and two-way Crizotinib mw escape responses, as well as the mean latencies of escape responses, were calculated online by equipment software. Controls were subjected to fictive shocks (FS; n = 20) in both training and test sessions. At the end of each session, the shuttle

boxes were cleaned with water followed by 10% ethyl alcohol solution. find more An additional group of non-handled rats (n = 13) remained undisturbed in their cages throughout the experiment except for DPAG stimulation sessions. This group served to assess the threshold changes across repeated stimulation sessions carried out at the same intervals Tau-protein kinase of the other groups. The EPM performance was assessed in FS (n = 20), ES (n = 16) and IS (n = 16) rats. The EPM was set 77 cm high in a low-lit (25 lux) temperature-controlled (23–25 °C) sound-attenuated room. The apparatus was a plus-shaped formica-covered wooden maze made

up of two opposing enclosed arms (50 × 10 cm) surrounded by a 40-cm wall and two opposing open arms (50 × 10 cm) surrounded by an aluminum rim (5 mm high × 3 mm wide) which served to minimise falls. Enclosed and open arms communicated through a central platform (10 × 10 cm). Sessions were carried out in a 44-lux room and filmed with a digital camera (Sony, model DSC-W70). Rats were placed in the center of the maze, facing an enclosed arm, and allowed to explore the maze for 5 min. Should the rat fall or jump to the floor, it was returned to its last position in the maze. Following each EPM session, the apparatus was cleaned with 10% ethyl alcohol solution. EPM performance was analysed off-line to give the percentage of open-arm entries (%OAE; 100 × open arm entries/total arm entries) and open arm time (%OAT; 100 × open arm time/total arm time), in which an ‘entry’ was defined as the invasion of the arm with four paws. The general activity was assessed through the number of enclosed-arm entries (EAE). The time spent in the central platform (TCP) was calculated as well.