The Relationship between Impulsive Choice and Impulsive Action: A Cross-Species Translational Study

Maladaptive impulsivity is a core symptom in various psychiatric disorders. However, there is only limited evidence available on whether different measures of impulsivity represent largely unrelated aspects or a unitary construct. In a cross-species translational study, thirty rats were trained in impulsive choice (delayed reward task) and impulsive action (five-choice serial reaction time task) paradigms. The correlation between those measures was assessed during baseline performance and after pharmacological manipulations with the psychostimulant amphetamine and the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine. In parallel, to validate the animal data, 101 human subjects performed analogous measures of impulsive choice (delay discounting task, DDT) and impulsive action (immediate and delayed memory task, IMT/DMT). Moreover, all subjects completed the Stop Signal Task (SST, as an additional measure of impulsive action) and filled out the Barratt impulsiveness scale (BIS-11). Correlations between DDT and IMT/DMT were determined and a principal component analysis was performed on all human measures of impulsivity. In both rats and humans measures of impulsive choice and impulsive action did not correlate. In rats the within-subject pharmacological effects of amphetamine and atomoxetine did not correlate between tasks, suggesting distinct underlying neural correlates. Furthermore, in humans, principal component analysis identified three independent factors: (1) self-reported impulsivity (BIS-11); (2) impulsive action (IMT/DMT and SST); (3) impulsive choice (DDT). This is the first study directly comparing aspects of impulsivity using a cross-species translational approach. The present data reveal the non-unitary nature of impulsivity on a behavioral and pharmacological level. Collectively, this warrants a stronger focus on the relative contribution of distinct forms of impulsivity in psychopathology

Brain Phenotype of Transgenic Mice Overexpressing Cystathionine β-Synthase

The cystathionine β-synthase (CBS) gene, located on human chromosome 21q22.3, is a good candidate for playing a role in the Down Syndrome (DS) cognitive profile: it is overexpressed in the brain of individuals with DS, and it encodes a key enzyme of sulfur-containing amino acid (SAA) metabolism, a pathway important for several brain physiological processes.Here, we have studied the neural consequences of CBS overexpression in a transgenic mouse line (60.4P102D1) expressing the human CBS gene under the control of its endogenous regulatory regions. These mice displayed a ∼2-fold increase in total CBS proteins in different brain areas and a ∼1.3-fold increase in CBS activity in the cerebellum and the hippocampus. No major disturbance of SAA metabolism was observed, and the transgenic mice showed normal behavior in the rotarod and passive avoidance tests. However, we found that hippocampal synaptic plasticity is facilitated in the 60.4P102D1 line.We demonstrate that CBS overexpression has functional consequences on hippocampal neuronal networks. These results shed new light on the function of the CBS gene, and raise the interesting possibility that CBS overexpression might have an advantageous effect on some cognitive functions in DS

Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues

If reward-associated cues acquire the properties of incentive stimuli they can come to powerfully control behavior, and potentially promote maladaptive behavior. Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties: they are attractive, they are themselves desired, and they can spur instrumental actions. We have found, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which animals attribute Pavlovian incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. The purpose of this paper was to develop criteria for identifying and classifying individuals based on their propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. To do this, we conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of rats (N = 1,878) subjected to a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure. We then used the propensity of animals to approach a cue predictive of reward (one index of the extent to which the cue was attributed with incentive salience), to characterize two behavioral phenotypes in this population: animals that approached the cue (“sign-trackers”) vs. others that approached the location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers”). This variation in Pavlovian approach behavior predicted other behavioral indices of the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. Thus, the procedures reported here should be useful for making comparisons across studies and for assessing individual variation in incentive salience attribution in small samples of the population, or even for classifying single animals