Interestingly, as well, whereas IS rats show increased levels of anxiety in both the social

interaction test (Christianson et al., 2009, 2010) and learning of a conditioned fear response (Maier et al., 1993; Baratta et al., 2007), they show the same anxiety of ES rats to the odor of a ferret (Baratta et al., 2007). Although the latter data show that the anxiogenic effects of uncontrollable stress depend on the model being tested, Palbociclib the present EPM and FST data make it unlikely that an increase in either the anxiety or depression baseline levels had occurred by the time we observed the major effects on DPAG-evoked defensive behaviors. In contrast, studies employing the elevated T-maze detected effects either anxiogenic or panicolytic the day after the exposure to uncontrollable stress (De Paula Soares et al., 2011). In particular, whereas the anxiety-like behavior (avoidance of open arms) was enhanced 24 h after the exposure to IS, FST or restraint stress, the

panic-like behavior (escape from open arms) was significantly attenuated. The latter effect bears a close resemblance to the attenuation of the DPAG-evoked escape response in the IS group. In fact, although the DPAG-evoked trotting and galloping were only slightly or moderately attenuated in the FS and ES groups (threshold increases of 8–30%), these behaviors were Selleckchem Etoposide robustly attenuated in the IS group (threshold increases of 30–57%). Notably, as well, whereas the thresholds of DPAG-evoked responses of ES rats had partly

recovered 7 days after one-way escape training, thresholds of IS rats remained high or were even further increased. The lack Meloxicam of changes in the thresholds of DPAG-evoked behaviors of non-handled rats suggests, on the other hand, that the effects in the FS group were due to handling rather than to the repeated exposure to intracranial stimuli. Therefore, although the recent studies suggest that the lasting effects of IS require periodic re-exposure to IS context cues (Maier, 2001; Dwivedi et al., 2004, 2005; Maier & Watkins, 2005), the enduring IS effects on DPAG-evoked responses are reminiscent of earlier studies in which a single IS session produced >1 week of deficits in bar-pressing escape in a homotypical context (Seligman et al., 1975), and a much longer depression of spontaneous activity in running-wheel and open-field heterotypical contexts (Desan et al., 1988; Maier et al., 1990; Van Dijken et al., 1992a,b). Most importantly, however, DPAG-evoked defensive behaviors were inhibited in spite of the striking differences in either the aversive stimulus (foot-shock vs. intracranial stimulus) or context (shuttle-box vs. open-field) of escape behaviors. Accordingly, IS inhibition of DPAG-evoked responses cannot be attributed to either a context conditioning or the stimulus sensitisation to repeated exposures of the same stressor.