Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 11;4(13):e126769. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.126769

Figure 4. RGS6–/– mice show increased sensitivity to quinpirole suppression of locomotion compared with RGS6+/+ control mice.

Figure 4

Locomotor activity was quantified by measuring (A) distance traveled, (B) travel velocity, as well as (C) frequency of movements to center of RGS6+/+ and RGS6–/– mice for 15 minutes following i.p. injection with either saline or quinpirole. Overall, quinpirole’s ability to suppress locomotion was significantly greater in 3-month-old RGS6–/– mice compared with RGS6+/+ mice (A) Significant effects of treatment [F(1,25) = 311.16, P ≤ 0.0001], strain [F(1,25) = 5.38, P = 0.029], and interaction [F(1,25) = 26.28, P ≤ 0.0001] were observed in distance traveled by the mice. (B) Significant effects of treatment [F(1,26) = 327.69, P ≤ 0.0001] and interaction [F(1,26) = 30.33, P ≤ 0.0001] were found in mouse travel velocity. (C) Significant effects of treatment [F(1,26) = 125.14, P ≤ 0.0001] and interaction [F(1,26) = 14.20, P = 0.001] were found in mouse movement to center frequency. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVAs with Fisher LSD post hoc analysis. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 8 saline RGS6+/+; 7 saline RGS6–/– mice; 8 quinpirole RGS6+/+ mice; 6–7 quinpirole RGS6–/– mice). *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001, ****P ≤ 0.0001.