Fig. 3.

Mice with Fmr1 deletion in PV-positive neurons do not display deficits in learning and memory. A, B Fmr1^−/y-PV and WT-PV mice spent more time exploring a novel object during STM A and LTM B portions of the object recognition test. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 12–13 animals per genotype). C Escape latency during the training portion of MWM was not significantly different between Fmr1^−/y-PV and WT-PV mice. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 15 animals per genotype). D, E Target quadrant occupancy D or frequency of platform crossings during 60 s probe trial of MWM test were not significantly different between Fmr1^−/y-PV and WT-PV mice. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 15 animals per genotype). F Preference index for a novel object location during OLM test was not significantly different between Fmr1^−/y-PV and WT-PV mice. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 8–10 animals per genotype). G, H Following threat conditioning, Fmr1^−/y-PV mice spent similar percentage of time freezing to the context G but spent significantly more time freezing to the audible cue H compared to WT-PV mice. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 12–14 animals per genotype). I Acquisition of threat memory extinction was not significantly different between the genotypes. Freezing to the tone shown in trial blocks on day 1 and day 2 of threat memory extinction. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 12–14 animals per genotype). J Fmr1^−/y-PV mice spent significantly more time freezing to the audible cue following reactivation of auditory threat memory. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 12–14 animals per genotype); ***p < 0.001; *p < 0.05; Two-way ANOVA or RM two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test, Student’s t test