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

. 2013 Apr 10;33(15):6691–6704. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0032-12.2013

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

Copyright © 2013 the authors 0270-6474/13/336691-14$15.00/0

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 3. — Developmental changes in PPI performance induced by MAM treatment. A, Experimental design for MAM treatment at different periods and PPI testing at PW10 or PW18. B, PPI defects were observed at PW10 in animals that received MAM treatment during PW3–PW5 (2-way ANOVA with group treatment and prepulse intensity: F_(2,33) = 1.102, p = 0.344; 1-way ANOVA with PP3: F_(1,11) = 5.95075, p = 0.03286; PP6: F_(1,11) = 6.35471, p = 0.02844; PP12: F_(1,11) = 14.28306, p = 0.00305 for MAM vs saline, n = 7 for saline and n = 6 for MAM). C, PPI deficits were observed at PW10 following MAM treatment during PW4–PW6 (2-way ANOVA with group treatment and prepulse intensity: F_(4,36) = 0.676, p = 0.613; 1-way ANOVA with PP3: F_(1,13) = 5.69986, p = 0.03285; PP6: F_(1,13) = 6.39256, p = 0.0252; PP12: F_(1,13) = 6.46156, p = 0.02456 for MAM vs saline, n = 8 for saline and n = 7 for MAM). D, PPI defects were observed only in PP3 at PW10 in animals that received MAM treatment during PW5–PW7 (2-way ANOVA with group treatment and prepulse intensity: F_(2,33) = 0.56, p = 0.577; 1-way ANOVA with PP3: F_(1,11) = 4.98357, p = 0.04733; PP6: F_(1,11) = 0.21936, p = 0.64867; PP12: F_(1,11) = 0.21027, p = 0.65549 for MAM vs saline, n = 7 for saline and n = 6 for MAM). E, There were no changes in PPI scores due to MAM treatment during PW6–PW8 (2-way ANOVA with group treatment and prepulse intensity: F_(2,36) = 0.146, p = 0.864; 1-way ANOVA with PP3: F_(1,12) = 0.91403, p = 0.35791; PP6: F_(1,12) = 0.94648, p = 0.34982; PP12: F_(1,12) = 0.8762, p = 0.3677 for MAM vs saline, n = 7 for each group). F, There were no changes in PPIs tested at PW12 following a 2 week MAM treatment during PW6–PW8 (2-way ANOVA with group treatment and prepulse intensity: F_(2,42) = 0.319, p = 0.729; 1-way ANOVA with PP3: F_(1,14) = 0.05173, p = 0.82336; PP6: F_(1,14) = 0.22695, p = 0.64115; PP12: F_(1,14) = 0.81549, p = 0.38178 for MAM vs saline, n = 5 for each group). G, PPI deficits were observed at PW18 following MAM treatment during PW4–PW6 (2-way ANOVA with group treatment and prepulse intensity: F_(2,42) = 0.832, p = 0.442; 1-way ANOVA with PP3: F_(1,14) = 10.28012, p = 0.00634; PP6: F_(1,14) = 7.6342, p = 0.01525; PP12: F_(1,14) = 13.58056, p = 0.00245 for MAM vs saline, n = 8 for saline and n = 7 for MAM). H, ANOVA analysis revealed that MAM treatment during PW3–PW5 (Group 1), PW5–PW7 (Group 3), or PW6–PW8 (Group 4) significantly decreased the number of newborn cells, identified by BrdU staining (Group 1: F_(1,14) = 9.66715, p = 0.00769; Group 3: F_(1,14) = 6.89389, p = 0.01996; Group 4: F_(1,14) = 8.6382, p = 0.01078 for MAM vs saline control, n = 8 mice for each group). *p < 0.05 vs saline control; **p < 0.01 vs saline control.