Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 1;12:590602. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.590602

TABLE 4.

The comparison of the open field test scores and sucrose preference of rats in different groups.

Group Open field test (scores) Sucrose preference (%)
After CUMS and ISO-induced After treatment After CUMS and ISO-induced After treatment
Control 160.17 ± 10.48 158.33 ± 12.4 91.69 ± 3.60 88.49 ± 2.91
Model 79.67 ± 6.80*** 58.83 ± 3.06 58.89 ± 2.33*** 55.03 ± 1.22
Ser + Met 82.83 ± 4.66*** 128.17 ± 8.4### 57.68 ± 2.79*** 81.17 ± 1.93###
Ser 77.5 ± 9.39*** 105.17 ± 7.9### 59.30 ± 2.69*** 76.01 ± 3.68###
Met 78.17 ± 6.94*** 96.67 ± 8.21### 56.51 ± 1.54*** 62.04 ± 1.40###
XPF-H 83.17 ± 2.63*** 148.50 ± 7.66### 58.25 ± 4.25*** 87.07 ± 2.16###
XPF-M 83.33 ± 0.13*** 122 ± 9.63### 57.39 ± 3.36*** 82.13 ± 1.52###
XPF-L 80.83 ± 7.98*** 109 ± 1### 57.76 ± 2.28*** 76.78 ± 1.72###

Values are expressed as the mean ± SD; n = 6–8 in each group. Compared with controll group after CUMS and ISO-induced.

***P < 0.005. Compared with model group after CUMS and ISO-induced, P > 0.05. Compared with model group after treatment, ### P < 0.005.