Korff Schaun, Harvey Brian H
Division of Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2006 Jun;29(2):371-90. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2006.02.007.
Animal models have shown progressive development and have undoubtedly proven their supportive value in OCD research. Thus, various animal models have confirmed the importance of the 5-HT [72-74] and dopamine systems [104,111] in the neurobiology and treatment of OCD. Given the neurochemical, emotional, and cognitive complexity of the disorder, how-ever, animal models are being used to investigate more and more complicated neurochemical and behavioral theories purported to underlie OCD. The lever-press model, for example, has implicated deficient response feed-back in a neural system that regulates operant behavior [74]. Studies on stereotypic movement disorder [89] have opened a new avenue of investigation into the neurobiology of stereotypy that may be applicable to more complex syndromes such as OCD. Models that have focused on specific neuropsychologic aspects of OCD such as reward [74], displacement behavior[63,101], perseveration and indecisiveness [73,102], and spontaneous stereotypy [90,94] are important in their attempt to unify the diverse behavioral manifestations of this disorder. It is clear that for a deeper, more holistic understanding of OCD, multiple animal models will be needed to allow investigation of the various aspects of the disorder and to provide convergent validation of the research findings. The heterogeneous nature of OCD, the various subtypes that exist within the disorder, and the range of obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders suggest that particular questions regarding OCD may be addressed best by us-ing a particular ethologic model, whereas other questions might require a pharmacologic model or a combination of both for meaningful results[62,115]. Genetic models will be extremely useful for studying the genetics of pathologic behavior and for relating these findings to neuroanatomic and neurochemical changes in the model (eg, DICT-7 mice as a model for Tourette's syndrome and OCD). Neither ethologic nor pharmacologic models, however, can assess whether the "compulsive" behavior is a response to an "obsessive" anxiety or fear. Perhaps the symptoms seen in patients who have OCD, which may be exacerbated by everyday stress, are analogous to displacement behaviors in animals and also reflect some form of anxiety or stress [98]. In this regard, the bank vole model [116]has provided evidence that previously developed stereotypies increase markedly after acute stress and argues that healthy individuals "habituate" to everyday stress, whereas patients who have OCD do not. Interindividual variation in behavioral response and attempts to replicate studies in different laboratories often is the nemesis of the behavioral scientist. Small within- and between-subject variability is usually desirable, how-ever, because there are cases in which the study of the variability of the model could lead to a better understanding of the disorder. Variability can-not always be considered an error; it is possible that previously disregarded neuronal systems may have a place in the observed variation and, indeed, in the pathophysiology of OCD. In this regard, SRIs are not always effective for OCD [6,29,30] such that a lack of effect in a model may reflect an un-known neurobiological basis for compulsive behavior in a sub-group of SRI refractory patients. Similarly, separating the afflicted (ie, working with animals that show greater behavioral change in a model and/or after drug treatment) would have distinct benefits. To increase successful implementation of an ethologic animal model, especially when reinforcement models or signal attenuation models are used,the laboratory must be equipped with the essential behavioral testing apparatus as well as the operant chambers/rooms in which to conduct the train-ing and data collection. Quantification of certain stereotypy behaviors also requires experienced or trained observers. An illustration of the difficulty in measuring behavioral changes is that in the rewarded alternation model,a good response to behavioral treatment (alternation training) may lead to a floor effect [73] which, after successful drug treatment of the animal,produces no residual persistence (ie, measurable behavioral change) on which a drug treatment can be tested. Clearly, the choice of ethologic, pharmacologic, or genetic models should be considered carefully. A well-validated model may quell many of the limitations and considerations described previously. Noninvasive neuroimaging(eg, the use of small-animal single-photon emission CT) to explore the neuroanatomic basis of OCD offers an exciting future challenge, especially if combined with pharmacologic or ethologic models, and could confirm or ex-tend knowledge of the neuroanatomy of OCD. Although studies to investigate further the interactive role of 5-HT, dopamine, GABA, and glutamate are still needed, the role of neuroactive peptides such as cholecystokinin, corticotrophin-releasing factor, neuropeptide Y, tachykinins (ie, substance P),and natriuretic peptides in OCD should also be considered. Genetically engineered animal models will become increasingly valuable in combination with new technologies such as gene-chip microarrays, RNA interference, and advanced proteomics that will help further the understanding of OCD. Animal models of OCD are poised to play a vital role in extending the knowledge of the disorder now and in the future.
动物模型已呈现出渐进性发展,并且在强迫症研究中无疑已证明了它们的辅助价值。因此,各种动物模型证实了5-羟色胺[72-74]和多巴胺系统[104,111]在强迫症神经生物学及治疗中的重要性。然而,鉴于该疾病在神经化学、情感和认知方面的复杂性,动物模型正被用于研究越来越多据称构成强迫症基础的复杂神经化学和行为理论。例如,杠杆按压模型表明在调节操作性行为的神经系统中存在反应反馈缺陷[74]。对刻板运动障碍的研究[89]为刻板行为神经生物学研究开辟了一条新途径,该研究可能适用于诸如强迫症等更复杂的综合征。专注于强迫症特定神经心理学方面(如奖赏[74]、替代行为[63,101]、固执和犹豫不决[73,102]以及自发刻板行为[90,94])的模型,对于试图统一该疾病多样行为表现而言具有重要意义。显然,为了更深入、更全面地理解强迫症,将需要多种动物模型来研究该疾病的各个方面,并为研究结果提供聚合性验证。强迫症的异质性、该疾病中存在的各种亚型以及强迫谱系障碍的范围表明,关于强迫症的特定问题可能通过使用特定的行为学模型得到最佳解决,而其他问题可能需要药理学模型或两者结合才能获得有意义的结果[62,115]。遗传模型对于研究病理行为的遗传学以及将这些发现与模型中的神经解剖学和神经化学变化相关联(例如,DICT-7小鼠作为抽动秽语综合征和强迫症的模型)将极为有用。然而,行为学模型和药理学模型都无法评估“强迫性”行为是否是对“强迫观念性”焦虑或恐惧的反应。也许强迫症患者出现的症状(可能因日常压力而加剧)类似于动物的替代行为,也反映了某种形式的焦虑或压力[98]。在这方面,田鼠模型[116]提供了证据,表明先前形成的刻板行为在急性应激后会显著增加,并认为健康个体对日常压力“习惯化”,而强迫症患者则不然。行为反应的个体差异以及在不同实验室重复研究的尝试往往是行为科学家的难题。然而,通常希望受试者内部和受试者之间的变异性较小,因为在某些情况下,对模型变异性的研究可能有助于更好地理解该疾病。变异性并不总是可以被视为误差;有可能先前被忽视的神经元系统在观察到的变异中以及实际上在强迫症的病理生理学中发挥作用。在这方面,选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SRIs)对强迫症并不总是有效[6,29,30],以至于在模型中缺乏效果可能反映了一部分对SRIs难治的患者强迫行为的未知神经生物学基础。同样,区分患病动物(即使用在模型中和/或药物治疗后表现出更大行为变化的动物)会有明显的益处。为了更成功地实施行为学动物模型,特别是在使用强化模型或信号衰减模型时,实验室必须配备基本的行为测试设备以及用于进行训练和数据收集的操作性实验箱/房间。对某些刻板行为进行量化还需要经验丰富或经过培训的观察者。测量行为变化困难的一个例子是在奖赏交替模型中,对行为治疗(交替训练)的良好反应可能会导致地板效应[73],即在对动物成功进行药物治疗后,不会产生可用于测试药物治疗效果的残留持续性(即可测量的行为变化)。显然,应仔细考虑行为学、药理学或遗传模型的选择。一个经过充分验证的模型可能会消除许多上述的局限性和需要考虑的因素。使用小动物单光子发射计算机断层扫描等无创神经成像技术来探索强迫症的神经解剖学基础提出了一个令人兴奋的未来挑战,特别是如果与药理学或行为学模型相结合,并且可以确认或扩展对强迫症神经解剖学的认识。尽管仍需要进一步研究5-羟色胺、多巴胺、γ-氨基丁酸(GABA)和谷氨酸的相互作用,但胆囊收缩素、促肾上腺皮质激素释放因子、神经肽Y、速激肽(即P物质)和利钠肽等神经活性肽在强迫症中的作用也应予以考虑。基因工程动物模型与基因芯片微阵列、RNA干扰和先进蛋白质组学等新技术相结合将变得越来越有价值,这将有助于进一步理解强迫症。强迫症动物模型在拓展当前及未来对该疾病的认识方面即将发挥至关重要的作用。