Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 22;7:13721. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13721

Figure 3. Modulation of mAON activity has no overt effect on affective behaviours.

Figure 3

hM3D-expressing mice and hM4D-expressing mice were each divided into two groups and treated with either vehicle or CNO before the behavioural tests. Vehicle-treated hM3D mice and hM4D mice showed no difference and, therefore, were combined. (a) In an elevated-plus maze, CNO-treatment in hM4D or hM3D-expressing animals did not influence entries into the open arms (left: independent-samples t-test; vehicle (n=9) versus hM4D (n=9), t(16)=0.26, ns, P=0.80; vehicle versus hM3D (n=9), t(16)=0.16, ns, P=0.88), percentage of time spent in the open arms (middle: vehicle versus hM4D, t(16)=0.39, ns, P=0.70; vehicle versus hM3D, t(16)=0.62, ns, P=0.54), or total distance travelled (right: vehicle versus hM4D t(16)=1.85, ns, P=0.084; vehicle versus hM3D, t(16)=1.19, ns, P=0.25). (b) CNO-treated groups displayed similar latency to retrieve and consume food placed in the centre of a brightly lit open field compared with vehicle-treated groups (vehicle (n=9) versus hM4D (n=9), t(16)=0.14, ns, P=0.89; vehicle versus hM3D (n=9), t(16)=0.52, ns, P=0.61). (c) CNO-treatment did not change the amount of food consumed in the home cage (vehicle (n=9) versus hM4D (n=9), t(16)=0.82, ns, P=0.43; vehicle versus hM3D (n=9), t(16)=0.35, ns, P=0.73). (d) Exploratory behaviour in the hole-board test was not affected by inhibition or activation of the mAON as determined by measuring number of head dips (left: vehicle (n=8) versus hM4D (n=8), t(14)=0.87, ns, P=0.40; vehicle versus hM3D (n=8), t(14)=0.48, ns, P=0.64), total head dip time (middle-left: vehicle versus hM4D, t(14)=0.85, ns, P=0.41; vehicle versus hM3D, t(14)=0.71, ns, P=0.49), number of rears (middle-right: vehicle versus hM4D, t(14)=0.45, ns, P=0.66; vehicle versus hM3D, t(14)=0.46, ns, P=0.65), and right: total rearing time (vehicle versus hM4D, t(14)=0.48, ns, P=0.64; vehicle versus hM3D, t(14)=0.0056, ns, P=0.996). (e) CNO-treated hM4D and hM3D groups exhibited no difference in latency to obtain food on a runway compared with vehicle-treated group (vehicle (n=8) versus hM4D (n=8), t(14)=0.92, ns, P=0.37; vehicle versus hM3D (n=8), t(14)=0.064, ns, P=0.95).