Large-Scale Assessment of Motor Activity in Rodents: Procedures for Routine Use in Toxicology Studies

Abstract

An automated system for the routine large-scale assessment of motor activity in rats has been established in this laboratory for use in toxicity testing. This study was designed to evaluate the validity and sensitivity of motor activity measurements for routine use in toxicology studies. The effects of two known neurotoxins, acrylamide (ACR) and 3'3'-iminodipropionitrile (IDPN), were measured in rats using an automated photocell device in the context of a routine toxicology study. One hundred Sprague-Dawley rats (10/sex/group) were dosed with vehicle, ACR (10 and 30 mg/kg/day) or IDPN (50 or 125 mg/kg/day), by oral gavage 7 days per week for 5 weeks (except where otherwise indicated). Motor activity was measured in 5-min test sessions prior to initiating treatment, 6 and 24 h after the first dose, and weekly thereafter. Significant mortality occurred in high-dose ACR animals during Week 3. A 10-or 7-day recovery period was initiated after 20 or 22 daily doses for high-dose ACR and IDPN animals, respectively; after which, the high dose ACR and IDPN animals, respectively; after which, the high dose of ACE: was lowered to 20 mg/kg/day. Rapid habituation to the test environment occurred over the 5-imin testing sessions. Significant depressions in activity were observed in high-dose ACR males during Weeks 3 and 5 and in high-dose ACR females during Weeks 2-5. High-dose IDPN females showed no significant changes in activity. However, significant activity depressions were noted in males during weeks 1, 3, and 5. When depressions in activity occurred, they were apparent over the entire test session. The sensitivity of activity measures was sufficient to detect a 15% change in activity levels as compared with controls, with sufficient statistical power to meet regulatory requirements. Inclusion of motor activity assessments complements the additional parameters routinely measured in toxicology studies, augmenting hazard identification.

References

1. Robbins, T.W. (1977). A critique of the methods available for the measurement of spontaneous motor activity. In: Iversen, L.L. , Iversen, S.D. , and Snyder, S.H. (eds.). Handbook of Psychopharmacology, vol. 7. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 37–82.

2. Reiter, L.W. , and Macphail, R.C. (1982). Factors influencing motor activity measurements in neurotoxicity. In: Mitchell, C.C. (ed.). Nervous System Toxicology. New York: Raven Press, pp. 45–65.

3. Reiter, L. W. , and Macphail, R.C. (1979). Motor activity: a survey of methods with potential use in toxicity testing. Test Meth. Def. Effects Toxic Subst. Behav. Neuromotor Funct. 1, 53–66.

4. Sandberg, P.R. , Hagenmeyer, H.S. , and Henault, M.A. (1985). Automated measurement of multivariate locomotor behavior in rodents. Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratol. 7, 87–94.

5. Sandberg, P.R. , Moran, T.H. , Kubos, K.L. , and Coyle, J.T. (1984). Automated measurement of rearing behavior in adult and neonatal rats. Behav. Neurosci. 4, 743–748.

6. Schulze, G.E. , and Dougherty, J.A. (1988). Neurobehavioral toxicity and tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid-n-butyl ester. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 10, 413–424.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencya (1985). Toxic Substances Control Act Testing Guidelines. 40 Cfr, Part 798, Subpart G. Fed. Reg. 50, (188).

8. Millenix, P.J. (1989). Evolution of motor activity tests into a screening reality. Toxicol. Ind. Health 5, 203–220.

9. Finger, F.W. (1961). Estrous activity as a function of measuring device. J. Compar. Physiol. Psychol. 54, 524–528.

10.

10. Strong, P.N. (1957). Activity in the white rat as a function of apparatus and hunger. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 50, 596–600.

11.

11. Jacobson, A.R. , Coltin, S.H. , Shearson, C.M. , and Sayre, C.M. (1987). B', B'-iminodipropionitrile (IDPN) neurotoxicity: A mechanistic hypothesis for toxic activation. Mol. Toxicol. 1, 17–34.

12.

12. Miller, M.S. , and Spencer, P.S. (1984). Single doses of acrylamide reduce anterograde transport velocity. J. Neurochem. 43, 1401–1408.

13.

13. Morandi, A. , Gambetti, P. , Arora, P.K. , and Sayre, L.M. (1987). Mechanism of neurotoxic action of 3′,3′-iminodipropionitrile (IDPN): N-hydroxylation enhances neurotoxic potency. Brain Res. 43, 69–76.

14.

14. Tanii, H. , Hayashi, M. , and Hashimoto, K. (1988). Neurofilament degradation in the nervous system of rats intoxicated with acrylamide, related compound or 2,5-hexanedione. Arch. Toxicol. 62, 70–74.

15.

15. Teal, J.J. , and Evans, H.L. (1982). Behavioral effects of acrylamide in the mouse. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 63, 470–480.

16.

16. Cadet, J.L. (1988). Participation of the serotonin 2 receptor in iminodipropionitrile-induced dyskinetic syndrome. Exper. Neurol. 99, 589–593.

17.

17. Cadet, J.L. , Jackson-Lewis, V. , and Fahn, S. (1988). The iminodipropionitrile (IDPN) model of persistent spasmodic dyskinesia: regional serotonin metabolism in rat brain. Brain Res. 456, 371–374.

18.

18. Chou, S. , and Hartmann, H. A. (1964). Anoxal lesions and waltzing syndrome after B, B'-iminodipropionitrile (IDPN) administration in rats. Acta Neuropathol. 3, 428–450.

19.

19. Tilson, H.A. , Spencer, P.S. , and Cabe, P.B. (1979). Acrylamide neurotoxicity in rats: A correlated neurobehavioral and pathologic study. Neurotoxicology 1, 89–104.

20.

20. Bartlett, M.S. (1937). Some examples of statistical method of research in agriculture and applied biology. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Suppl. IV, 137–143.

21.

21. Schulze, G.E., and Boysen, B. (1990). Validation of a neurotoxicity screening battery: Effects of acrylamide and 3′3′-iminodipropioniuile. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. Submitted.

22.

22. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw Hill, p. 261.

23.

23. Dunnett, C. W. (1964). New tables for multiple comparisons with a control. Biometrics 20, 482–491.

24.

24. Dunlap, W.P. (1981). An interactive Fortran Iv program for calculating power, sample size or detectable differences in means. Behav. Res. Methods Instrument. 13, 757–763.

25.

25. Fitzgerald, R. E. , Berres, B. , and Schaeppi, U. (1988). Validation of aphotobeam system for assessment of motor activity in rats. Toxicology 49, 433–439.

26.

26. Maurissen, J.P.J. , and Mattsson, J.L. (1989). Critical assessment of motor activity as a screen for neurotoxicity. Toxicol. Ind. Health 5, 195–203.

27.

27. Gerber, G.J. , and O'shaughnessy, D. (1986). Comparison of the behavioral effects of neurotoxic and systemically toxic agents: How discriminative are behavioral tests of neurotoxicity? Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratol. 8, 703–710.

28.

28. Weiss, B. , and Laties, V.G. (1975). In: Weiss, B. , and Laties, V.G. (eds.). Behavioral Toxicology. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1–10.

29.

29. Zbinden, G. (1983). Definition of adverse behavioral effects. In: Zbinden, G. , Cuomo, V. , Racagni, G. , and Weisa, B. (eds.). Application of Behavioral Pharmacology in Toxicology, New York: Raven Press, pp. 1–14.

30.

30. Macphail, R.C. , Peele, D.B. , and Croiton, K.M. (1989). Motor activity and screening for neurotoxicity. J. Am. Coll. Toxicol. 8: 117–126.