Skip to main content
. 2016 May 10;7:11459. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11459

Figure 3. Aberrant functional neural connectivity in Δe4–22 mice.

Figure 3

(a) Schematic representation of the forced social interaction test (top). A 4 s trace of LFP activity in Δe4–22 mice, recorded before and following introduction of the C3H social stimulus mouse (arrow at bottom). (b) Test-related changes in oscillatory power in Δe4–22−/− (−/−) and Δe4–22+/+ (+/+) littermates. (Mixed model ANOVA genotype × test–condition interaction (see Supplementary Table 3)). *P< 0.05, +/+ versus −/− mice, #P<0.05, comparisons within genotype. (c,d) Diagrams showing functional connectivity across the recorded brain areas before and after introduction of the social stimulus mouse in +/+ (c) and −/− (d) mice. The thickness of the connecting lines corresponds to the coherence between each pair of brain areas in the specified frequency band. The image on the right shows the change in coherence observed across the network following introduction of the social stimulus mouse. Only coherence measures that demonstrated significant test–condition interactions are shown. (e) Significant genotype by test–condition interaction identified in the social-related network using mixed model ANOVA. **P<0.05, for significant genotype effect, +/+ versus −/− mice (FDR-corrected); ##P< 0.01, within genotype comparison (FDR-corrected) (see Supplementary Table 3). (f) Effects of genotype and test–conditions—in unit firing rates (mixed model ANOVA, genotype × test–condition interaction (see Supplementary Table 3)). *P< 0.05, for significant genotype effect, +/+ versus −/− mice; ##P<0.05, for test–condition effects within genotype. (g) LFP phase-amplitude coupling (CFPC) in +/+ and −/− mice. LFP-β (15–30 Hz) and -γ (30–55 Hz) oscillatory activities were modulated by the phase of locally recorded 2–5 Hz oscillations. An example of CFPC across a single NAC channel is shown during the forced interaction test (left). Effects of genotype and test–conditions in CFPC (right) (mixed model ANOVA, genotype × test–condition interaction (see Supplementary Table 3)). ##P<0.05, for test–condition effects within genotype. (h) Directional network communication during social interaction. A temporal delay between thalamic to striatal oscillatory activity was diminished in the −/− animals. *P<0.05, −/− versus +/+ (FDR-corrected rank sum test). The thickness of a line in the panel to the right denotes the degree of functional connectivity. For all panels, n=11–14/genotype. All data are expressed as means±s.e.m.