Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 27.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 Jun 24;34(11):2459–2468. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.68

Figure 3.

Figure 3

SU1498 blocks the effect of fluoxetine (FLX) in the novelty suppressed feeding test. (a) Although the two-way ANOVA statistical analysis failed to find an interaction between treatment and infusion (F(1, 24) = 2.24, P = 0.14), there was a significant treatment effect (F(1, 24) = 9.43, P = 0.0052) showing that CUS + FLX + DMSO treated animals shows a significantly lower latency to feed than that of the CUS + SAL + DMSO. However, the latency to feed of the CUS + FLX + SU5416 was not significantly different from that of the CUS + SAL + SU5416. (n = 6–9 per group). (b) FLX had a significant effect in DMSO (F(3, 26) = 3.06, P<0.01) but not in SU1498 treated animals (F(3, 26) = 3.06, P<0.1) (n = 7–8/group). The interaction between treatment and infusion was significant (F(1, 26)=441, P<0.05). Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of the latency in seconds to eat. FLX, Fluoxetine; SAL, saline control. **P<0.01 compared with CUS + SAL+ DMSO; #P<0.05 compared with CUS + FLX + DMSO.