1 Citation
Additional file 8: Sup Figure 8. Behavioural assessment. (a-c) The total number of arm entries made in the Y-maze (a) as well as the time spent exploring the novel object in the recognition task (b) and the total time spent in the working memory version of the RAM (c) was not different between any of the genotypes indicating that hyperactivity did not affect animals’ ability to perform in these tests (n’s for a: WT = 24, GluA2G/G = 20, J20 = 24, GluA2G/G/J20 = 22; n’s for b: WT = 25, GluA2G/G = 21, J20 = 28, GluA2G/G/J20 = 22; n’s for c: WT = 14, GluA2G/G = 10, J20 = 10, GluA2G/G/J20 = 11; Y-maze entries ANOVA: F(3,8) = 2.271, p = 0.09; Object Recognition ANOVA: F(3,92) = 0.754, p = 0.52; RAM total time two-way RM ANOVA: genotype effect F(3,41) = 1.907, p = 0.14). (d) Total distance travelled in the open field test revealed both J20 and GluA2G/G/J20 mice displayed significantly more hyperactivity than WT and GluA2G/G mice (ANOVA F(3,88) = 18.90, p <0.0001; n’s: WT = 26, GluA2G/G = 20, J20 = 27, GluA2G/G/J20 = 19). (e) The ratio of open arm to total arm entries in the elevated plus maze showed a trend towards more open arm entries in J20 animals and a recovery of this in GluA2G/G/J20 mice (Welch’s ANOVA W(3,29.15) = 2.12, p = 0.12; n’s: WT = 15, GluA2G/G = 13, J20 = 16, GluA2G/G/J20 = 14). (f) Both J20 and GluA2G/G/J20 mice displayed an increased latency to fall from the rotarod on Day 1 of testing compared to WT and GluA2G/G mice, however, no differences were observed between any of the genotypes on testing days 2 and 3 indicating a normal motor learning ability for all groups across the testing period (RM ANOVA for time: F(2,232) = 15.16, p < 0.0001; for genotype: F(3,116) = 4.96, p < 0.01; n’s: WT = 33, GluA2G/G = 24, J20 = 36, GluA2G/G/J20 = 27). Each value represents the mean ± the SD for bar graphs and SEM for line graphs. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.