Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Oct 29.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroscience. 2016 Aug 17;335:151–169. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.08.019

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Replacing the new object with a cagemate aligned social approach behaviors of PDE11A mutant males and females, with PDE11A mutant mice showing context-dependent changes in social approach behavior. (A) Relative to PDE11A wild-type (WT) mice, PDE11A HT and KO mice generally demonstrated intact social approach towards their own cagemate. (Left) an exception exists in that HTs fail to differentiate their latency to approach a cagemate vs. a novel object (latency: F(1,60) = 5.94, P = 0.018); however, all mice demonstrate significant social preference for the cagemate in terms of (middle) chamber time (F(1,63) = 15.01, P < 0.001) and (right) cylinder time (F(1,60) = 32.79, P < 0.001). *vs. cagemate, P < 0.001. (B) When given a choice between a cagemate and a novel PDE11A WT, PDE11A KO mice exhibited significant social approach in terms of (left) their latency to approach the chamber (F(1,24) = 13.75, P = 0.001), (middle) time in chamber (F(1,25) = 28.39, P = 0.001), and (right) time near the cylinder (F(1,23) = 20.41, P < 0.001), as did PDE11A WT mice (latency: F(1,22) = 15.18, P < 0.001; chamber time: F(1,23) = 16.24, P < 0.001; cylinder time: F(1,23) = 7.46, P = 0.012). Surprisingly, PDE11A HT mice showed further impairments in social approach such that both male and female HTs failed to demonstrate any preference for the new PDE11A WT over their own cagemate on any measure. Further, PDE11A HT mice spent significantly more time in the chamber of the cagemate than did PDE11A WT and KO mice (F(2,63) = 5.12, P = 0.009) and significantly less time in the chamber of the new PDE11A WT than did PDE11A WT and KO mice (F(2,65) = 4.52, P = 0.015). (C) Similarly, PDE11A HT mice failed to show a significant preference in their latency to approach a new C57BL/6J mouse vs. their own cagemate, unlike the PDE11A WT (F(1,24) = 31.54, P < 0.001) and KO mice (F(1,25) = 28.15, P < 0.001). This is due to the fact that PDE11A HT approached their cagemate significantly sooner than did PDE11A WT mice (F(2,65) = 3.85, P = 0.026). A similar trend was observed in the PDE11A KO mice (Post hoc, P = 0.079). (Middle) despite these differences in latency to approach, PDE11A WT (F(1,23) = 85.83, P < 0.001), HT (F(1,14) = 45.43, P < 0.001), and KO mice (F(1,26) = 48.12, P < 0.001) all showed a significant preference for the new C57BL/6J mouse over their own cagemate in terms of time spent in each chamber. (Right) PDE11A WT (F(1,23) = 30.91, P < 0.001), HT (F(1,13) = 83.04, P < 0.001), and KO mice (F(1,22) = 6.84, P = 0.016) also showed a significant preference for the new C57BL/6J mouse over their own cagemate in terms of time spent near the cylinder. That said, there was a significant difference among the genotypes in terms of how much time was spent near the cylinder of the C57BL/6J mice (F(2,63) = 10.90, P < 0.001), with PDE11A HT mice spending significantly more time relative to WT mice and PDE11A KO mice showing a strong trend towards spending less time than WT mice (Post hoc, P = 0.057). (F, G) WT-F, n = 14; HT-F, n = 9; KO-F, n = 15; WT-M, n = 12; HT-M, n = 7; KO-M, n = 11. Post hoc, *vs. cagemate, P < 0.05–0.001; #vs. WT, P = 0.025–0.004.