Figure 4.

A1R KO mice show no impairment in motor learning, nor an increased anxiety compared with WT controls. a–c, Data from each animal (horizontal dash symbols), and group averages with SEM are shown. a, Latency to fall from an accelerating rotation drum (rotarod test) in WT and KO mice on days 1 and 2. Latency increased on day 2 in both the WT group (from 31.1 ± 3.4 s to 45.9 ± 4.4 s; N = 30; p < 0.001; Wilcoxon test, V = 440; t test, t = 5.24, df = 29) and the KO group (from 29.5 ± 3.3 s to 48.7 ± 7.2 s; N = 18; Wilcoxon test: V = 165, p < 0.001; t test: t = 3.91, df = 17, p = 0.0011). No difference between WT and KO groups (p > 0.7 for days 1 and 2; KS and t tests). b, Percentage of time spent on the open and closed arms of the elevated plus maze. No difference between the WT and KO groups (open arm: 9.0 ± 2.3% vs 10.1 ± 1.7%, p > 0.1; closed arm: 91.0 ± 2.3% vs 89.9 ± 1.7%, p > 0.1; KS and t tests). c, The percentage of time spent during the open field test in the four virtually defined regions: outer, outer-in, center-out, and center. No difference between WT and KO groups for any of the regions: outer, 78.1 ± 1.06% versus 73.2 ± 3.44%; outer-in, 15.1 ± 0.75% versus 18.2 ± 2.33%; center-out, 4.8 ± 0.33% versus 6.3 ± 0.97%; center, 2.0 ± 0.18% versus 2.3 ± 0.31%; p > 0.1 for all WT versus KO comparisons, KS and t tests. See Extended Data Figure 4-1 for details of statistical analyses.