Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 26;9(10):254. doi: 10.3390/brainsci9100254

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Mean (± SEM (standard error of the mean)) % FPS (fear-potentiated startle) in HAP1 (high alcohol preferring; left panels) and LAP1 (low alcohol preferring; right panels) mice in the fear-conditioned (FC; paired light +shock), control (CON; unpaired light and shock), and no-shock (NS; light only) groups for experiment 1. *p < 0.01, HAP1 > LAP1; + p < 0.01, FC > CON, NS (no-shock group).Analysis of % FPS in fear-conditioned HAP1 and LAP1 females as a function of their estrous stage on the FPS test day indicated a main effect in LAP1 mice only (F(3,15) = 4.7, p < 0.05). Tukey’s post-hoc analyses indicated that % FPS of LAP1 mice in D stage (36.6 ± 9.2, n = 3) was significantly greater than those in E (−3.6 ± 5.6, n = 8, p = 0.01) and M (2.8 ± 7.1, n = 5, p < 0.05) stages.