Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2019 Apr 17;13:359. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00359

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2019 Zenz, Jačan, Reichmann, Farzi and Holzer.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

PMC Copyright notice

Intermittent fasting induces sickness behavior in response to Poly(I:C). Mice were kept on an ad libitum feeding regimen (AL) or deprived of food on every other day (IF) for 9 days. On day 10, mice were injected i.p. with vehicle (VEH) or Poly(I:C) (12 mg/kg) and 4 h later subjected to the open field (OF) test to evaluate sickness behavior: (A) distance traveled, (B) time spent immobile, (C) visits to the central area of the OF, (D) average speed of movements. Values represent means ± SEM, n = 7–9. Results of two-way ANOVA: F(1, 29) = 2.164, p = 0.1521 for interaction of feeding regimen/Poly(I:C) in distance traveled; F(1, 29) = 12.73, p ≤ 0.01 for main effect of feeding regimen on distance traveled; F(1, 29) = 6.674, p ≤ 0.05 for main effect of Poly(I:C) on distance traveled; F(1, 29) = 1.575, p = 0.2195 for interaction of feeding regimen/Poly(I:C) in time spent immobile; F(1, 29) = 9.330, p ≤ 0.01 for main effect of feeding regimen on time spent immobile; F(1, 29) = 3.813, p = 0.0606 for main effect of i.p. treatment on time spent immobile; F(1, 29) = 0.05753, p = 0.8121 for interaction of feeding/Poly(I:C) in number of central area visits; F(1, 29) = 7.710, p ≤ 0.01 for main effect of IF on number of central area visits; F(1, 29) = 1.537, p = 0.2249 for main effect of i.p. treatment on number of central area visits; F(1, 29) = 2.163, p = 0.1521 for interaction of feeding regimen/Poly(I:C) in speed of movements; F(1, 29) = 12.72, p ≤ 0.01 for main effect of feeding regimen on speed of movements; F(1, 29) = 6.673, p ≤ 0.05 for main effect of Poly(I:C) on speed of movements. Results of Sidak’s multiple comparison test: ^∗p ≤ 0.05, ^∗∗p ≤ 0.01, ^∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001 compared to AL/VEH.