Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 3;4:e04979. doi: 10.7554/eLife.04979

Figure 2. Behavioural despair of Disc1 mice correlates with impairment in theta and low-gamma oscillations in the PrlC.

(A) TST activates cFos in PrlC independent from genotype (fold increase Disc1: 3.92 ± 1.54, n = 4; control: 4.78 ± 1.07, n = 3). (B) LFP recording during TST. Enhanced freezing of Disc1 mice is preserved in the electrode-implanted cohort (52.2 ± 5.8 vs 29.4 ± 4.0, n = 8, 6). M1,2: motor cortex, Cg: cingulate cortex. (C and D) Reduced power of Disc1 mice in the theta (0.11 ± 0.03 vs 0.29 ± 0.04 mV2*10−3) and low-gamma band (0.11 ± 0.02 vs 0.29 ± 0.04 mV2*10−3, n = 8, 6). Insets: filtered traces. (E) Oscillation amplitudes over frequency. (F) Oscillatory defects are observed in the home cage (theta: 0.10 ± 0.02 vs 0.18 ± 0.04 mV2*10−3, gamma: 0.12 ± 0.02 vs 0.22 ± 0.03 mV2*10−3, n = 8, 6). (G) Theta and low-gamma power correlate with TST freezing duration (theta: r = −0.6923, p = 0.0061; low-gamma: r = −0.79, p = 0.0008) but not with home cage immobility (r = −0.029, r = −0.222). Black lines: linear fits. (H) Home cage low-gamma but not theta can predict TST freezing (gamma: r = −0.569, theta: r = −0.440). (I) Low-gamma activity in Disc1 PrlC is impaired during UP-states in anesthesia (0.6 ± 0.1 vs 1.1 ± 0.2 mV2*10−3, n = 11, 7). (J) Top, cross-correlation of LFP simultaneously recorded in hippocampus and PrlC suggests that theta oscillations are driven by hippocampus (peak lag: 36.5 ± 20.9 vs 35.3 ± 14.3 ms, n = 5, 4). Bottom, hippocampal theta power is impaired in Disc1 mice (0.87 ± 0.23 vs 4.14 ± 1.54 mV2*10−3, n = 4, 3, p = 0.01). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Data are mean ± SEM, circles are individual mice.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04979.009

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Unchanged hippocampal-prefrontal theta coherence.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

(A) Average coherence during TST and baseline revealed a sharp peak in the delta frequency range in both genotypes. Solid lines are mean, shaded areas SEM. (B) There is no difference in the average coherence (6–12 Hz) between Disc1 and control mice (n = 4 Disc1, 3 control mice). Data are mean ± SEM.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04979.010
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Low-gamma defect in the PrlC of Disc1 mice does not depend on the behavioral state during TST.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

(A) Average power spectral density in the PrlC of Disc1 (green) and control mice (black) during freezing (left) and movement (right). (B) Summary plots of mean low-gamma power revelas significantly impaired power during both behavioral states. (n = 8 Disc1, 6 control mice). Data are mean ± SEM.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04979.011