We address this limitation by outlining three criteria for validating translational paradigms. Surprisingly, there is little consensus on what criteria should be used for validating translational paradigms, a fact that significantly hinders selection of appropriate tasks (see Willner, 1986 for validation criteria for animal models) and therefore limits the likelihood that laboratory research will translate to human treatments.
The quotation above articulates the potential benefits of translational research for society and stresses the need to carefully select tasks that allow extrapolation from animal models to humans in order to reap these benefits. “ By carefully selecting tasks for animals with high construct validity to human tasks, reliability and accuracy of translational efforts will not be lost and meaningful progress can be made in ameliorating the cognitive deficits that affect the lives of those suffering from mental illness.” We conclude that the Hebb–Williams mazes paradigm has the potential to be utilized in translational research to measure comparable cognitive functions in FXS humans and animals (criterion #3). With regards to performance on the first trial, which reflects visuo-spatial problem solving, Mazes 5 and 9 without visual cues produced the most consistent results. Species differences were negligible for Mazes 2, 4, and 5 irrespective of the presence of visual cues, suggesting that these mazes could be used to measure spatial learning in both species. We directly compared the performance of affected humans and mice across different experimental conditions and measures of behavior to identify which conditions produce comparable patterns of results in both species. We focused on this paradigm because it allows direct comparison of humans and animals on tasks that are behaviorally equivalent (criterion #1) and because it measures spatial information processing, a cognitive domain for which FXS individuals and mice show impairments as compared to controls (criterion #2). We then evaluate the Hebb–Williams maze paradigm ( Hebb and Williams, 1946 Rabinovitch and Rosvold, 1951) on the basis of these criteria using Fragile X syndrome (FXS) as model disease. We outline three criteria for validating translational paradigms. However, few studies have evaluated translational paradigms on the basis of defined validation criteria. To generate meaningful information, translational research must employ paradigms that allow extrapolation from animal models to humans. 3Pediatrics, Biochemistry, and Neurology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.2Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.1School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Holahan 2, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis 3, Reno M.
0 kommentar(er)
