Fig. 5.

Effect of GAD65 knock down in the dDG on behavioral responses of adult rats after JVS: The schematic lay out of the experimental timeline and group size are illustrated in Fig. 1 (A) Representative photomicrograph depicting injection site of shGAD65 and random sequence control vectors targeted to the dDG and expression of green fluorescence protein (GFP). Scale bar, 500 μm. (B) Juvenile stress-induced effects in the OF. (C) Attenuation of stress-induced anxiety in the EPM, as measured by the proportion of open arm entries. N for all groups is the same as in (B) and as described in Fig. 1. ***p ≤ 0.001. (D) Improved performance of rats in the TWSA. Training was done for 3 days and memory retrieval was on day 8. *p ≤ 0.05. (E) Recovery of memory performance in the MWM; the latency to reach the hidden platform was evaluated over 3 days of training. *p < 0.05; #p < 0.05 for NAÏVE vs JS + shCTR. The probe test was done on day 4 (on the right represented by bars). **p ≤ 0.01. Mean ± SEM are shown for all the graphs (B–E). (F) Behavioral profiling analysis, was conducted to examine the impact of the shGAD65 manipulation on the prevalence of affected versus unaffected individuals (see Supplemental Information). Values are the percentage of unaffected and affected animals in each group. (x² = 32.807, p < 0.001). NAÏVE + JS, non-vector-injected naïve rats exposed to juvenile stress (JVS); NAÏVE, unexposed rats; JS + shCTR, control shRNA injected groups pre-exposed to JVS; shGAD65, shGAD65 injected groups pre-exposed to JVS. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)