Skip to main content
. 2012 Jun 20;37(10):2210–2221. doi: 10.1038/npp.2012.70

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Effects of the unpredictable chronic mild stress (UCMS) and 7-week treatment with fluoxetine (FLX, 20 mg/kg per day, per os (p.o.)) or almorexant (ALM, 100 mg/kg per day, p.o.) on behaviors. (a) The UCMS increased the time of immobility in the tail suspension test (TST) (non-UCMS/vehicle (VEH) group vs UCMS/VEH group), while pharmacological treatments decreased this alteration (UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/FLX or UCMS/ALM groups). Pharmacological treatments also reduced the time of immobility in non-UCMS mice (non-UCMS/VEH group vs §non-UCMS/FLX or §non-UCMS/ALM groups). Furthermore, significant difference was also observed between the UCMS/FLX group and #UCMS/ALM groups. (b) The UCMS decreased the attack latency in the resident-intruder (R-I) test (non-UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/VEH group), whereas pharmacological treatments reversed this agonistic behavior (UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/FLX or UCMS/ALM groups). (c) In the elevated plus maze (EPM), the UCMS decreased the time spent in open arms (non-UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/VEH group), whereas pharmacological treatments reversed this UCMS-induced effect (UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/FLX or UCMS/ALM groups). In addition, FLX also increased the time spent in open arms in non-UCMS mice (non-UCMS/FLX group vs §non-UCMS/VEH or §non-UCMS/ALM groups). (d) The UCMS induced an increase of the latency to eat the pellet in the novelty-suppressed feeding (NSF) test (non-UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/VEH group), whereas FLX reversed this alteration (UCMS/VEH group vs UCMS/FLX group). However, ALM seemed to increase the latency to eat the pellet (non-UCMS/ALM group vs §non-UCMS/VEH or §non-UCMS/FLX groups). Data represents mean±SEM; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; n=14–19 mice per group as shown in Figure 2.