The main results of this study were that higher cortisol/DHEA-S ratios were associated with increased fear responses, based on startle and subjective measures of valence and arousal. Subjects in the high cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group exhibited increased fear-potentiated startle to the CS+ compared to the CS- and increased ratings of arousal and negative valence, compared to subjects with low cortisol/DHEA-S ratios. Further, levels of cortisol and DHEA-S separately were associated with the magnitude of fear-potentiated startle to the CS+. The regression analysis showed significant regression coefficients that were positive for cortisol and negative for DHEA-S. This is consistent with the view that the two steroids affect responses to stress in an opposite direction (
Kalimi et al. 1994).
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of an association between fear-potentiated startle and cortisol and DHEA-S. It is well established that fear-potentiated startle during aversive conditioning reflects fear elicited by the CS+ (see
Grillon and Baas 2003). Smaller fear-potentiated startle in the low cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group compared to the high cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group was also accompanied by lower levels of arousal and negative valence. These results suggest that the low cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group was less fearful of the CS+ in the second phase compared to the high cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group. Such a fear reduction could be due to habituation to the shocks, which may have become less aversive following repeated presentations in this group. An alternative interpretation is that the small differentiation between CS+ and CS- in the low cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group reflected reduced or unsuccessful fear conditioning. This is an unlikely explanation because the low and high cortisol/DHEA-S ratio groups conditioned similarly in phase 1. It is more likely that the low cortisol/DHEA-S ratio group learned the appropriate CS+/-shock contingency, but that the shock was no longer as anxiogenic in the second phase as it was in the first phase.
The positive association between cortisol and fear-potentiated startle is consistent with preclinical data. A positive correlation between freezing (a measure of fear) and corticosterone has been reported in young monkeys (
Kalin 1993). Similarly, corticosterone potentiates conditioned fear in rodents (
Corodimas et al. 1994). A possible interpretation of these effects is that corticosterone increases fear by acting on CRH outside the HPA axis. Several studies have demonstrated that CRH is anxiogenic in several tests in rodents (
Berridge and Dunn 1986;
Cole and Koob 1988;
Dunn and File 1987;
Takahashi et al. 1989). CRH also increased markedly the magnitude of the startle reflex when given intraventricularly (
Liang et al. 1992;
Swerdlow et al. 1986). The mechanism by which fear potentiation occurs remains to be elucidated. The amygdala is involved in the potentiation of startle to an explicit cue (i.e., CS+) in rodents (
Davis 1998). In addition, although corticosterone is known to reduce CRH mRNA in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus, it can increase CRH mRNA in the amygdala (
Schulkin et al. 1998). On the other hand, the amygdala does not seem to mediate CRH-enhanced startle. Neurotoxic lesions of the amygdala do not block CRH-enhanced startle (
Lee and Davis 1997), and CRH infused into the amygdala do not increase baseline startle (
Liang et al. 1992). It is more likely that CRH potentiates startle via action at the level of the BNST. Intra-BNST infusion of CRH increases startle amplitude (
Liang et al. 1992), and injection of a CRH antagonist into the BNST, but not into the CeA, blocks CRH-enhanced startle (
Lee and Davis 1997).
There was a significant increase in state anxiety from the screening session to the preconditioning session, suggesting an increase in anticipatory anxiety about the upcoming fear conditioning experiment and a further increase during acquisition. Plasma cortisol increased initially (baseline), but decreased subsequently. The cortisol data are difficult to interpret because placement of the intravenous catheters is likely to be responsible for the initial increase in cortisol and may have subsequently masked any effect due to anticipatory anxiety.
DHEA-S showed no changes from the screening day to the testing day and no changes during the testing day, suggesting that DHEA-S is not released under mildly stressful conditions such as those in the present experiment. Nevertheless, DHEA-S was negatively associated with the magnitude of fear-potentiated startle. One potential interpretation of this finding is that DHEA-S exerts an antianxiety effect. Antianxiety or antistress role for DHEAS has been reported for physical and mental diseases (
Dubrovsky 1997;
Hechter et al. 1997), as well as during strenuous and dangerous military trainings (
Bernton et al. 1995;
Morgan et al. 2004). DHEA release following ACTH injection is also associated with decreased avoidance and decreased negative mood symptoms in women with PTSD (
Rasmusson et al. 2004). Based on these results, it has been suggested that DHEA/DHEA-S is involved in the termination of a stress response and/or in reducing anxiety (
Majewska 1992). Anxiolytic and antidepressant effects of DHEA-S have been demonstrated in preclinical studies (
Frye and Lacey 1999;
Melchior and Ritzmann 1994;
Prasad et al. 1997). Anxiolytic effects can be found with small amount of DHEA and DHEA-S (
Melchior and Ritzmann 1994). Consistent with these findings, DHEA-S reduces contextual fear conditioning in rodents (
Fleshner et al. 1997).
Human studies using cortisol measures suffer from several factors that complicate interpretation. One such limitation comes from diurnal variations in cortisol. Possible changes in cortisol over several hours induced by an experimental manipulation, such as a possible increase in cortisol during conditioning, could be masked by the normal reduction in morning cortisol level. If the aversive conditioning experiment per se (as opposed to anticipation of the procedure) produced HPA activation, this activation probably was relatively small. Other stressors such as social challenges produce a reliable increase in cortisol throughout the day (
Kudielka et al. 2004). Another limitation is that we did not have a true measure of baseline cortisol during the screening day because of the use of venipuncture, which may have engendered anticipatory anxiety and discomfort. Finally, we did not collect information from females on the phase in the menstrual cycle during which they were tested. Human studies have produced inconsistent results with respect to potential changes in HPA reactivity over the menstrual cycle (
Abplanalp et al. 1977;
Kirschbaum et al. 1999;
Marinari et al. 1976;
Tersman et al. 1991). Neither DHEA nor DHEA-S appears to vary systematically with menstrual phase (
Vermeulen 1980). The effects of ovarian hormonal fluctuations on fear-potentiated startle to threat of shock are also unknown. Baseline startle is unaffected by such fluctuations, but some forms of startle plasticity such as prepulse inhibition are influenced by ovarian hormones (
Jovanovic et al. 2004). Similarly, it is possible that ovarian hormones affect fear-potentiated startle given the interaction between the HPA axis and reproductive hormones (
Kalantaridou et al. 2004). However, because both groups consisted of males as well as females, this is unlikely to explain all of our effects. Indeed, a reanalysis of the data using only males confirmed the main findings. There was a greater fear-potentiated startle to the CS+ compared to the CS- in the second conditioning phase in the high (CS-=33.9, CS+=54.9,
p=0.06) compared to the low cortisol/DHEA-S (CS-=28.0, CS+= 23.7,
p>0.1) group [
F(1,10)=7.0,
p<0.02].
The current study was an attempt at understanding hormonal mechanisms modulating fear-potentiated startle during aversive conditioning. We found that cortisol was positively associated, and DHEA-S was negatively associated with the magnitude of fear-potentiated startle. The cortisol data extend findings from preclinical research on fear conditioning. The DHEA-S data are consistent with emerging literature, suggesting a stress-buffering effect of DHEA-S. Future studies should further examine the role of DHEA and DHEA-S in fear and fear learning as they may help identify mechanisms involved in the resilience to stress.