FIGURE 3.

IBP1 classified animals into affected or unaffected in different groups. (A) Percentage distribution of affected animals and unaffected animals in control group. (B) Percentage of affected animals was found to be significantly higher in trauma-exposed animals than controls at 2 weeks post UWT [(Fisher exact test, p*** < 0.001); Control (n = 16), trauma-exposed (n = 93)]. (C) Total distance traveled by trauma affected animal was less than controls and unaffected animals [Kruskal–Wallis test (H (3) = 67.36, p < 0.0001); Dunn’s post-hoc comparison, p*** < 0.001]. (D) Time spent in the closed arms of WAZM was more by the trauma affected animals than controls and trauma unaffected animals [Kruskal–wallis test (H (3) = 34.53, p < 0.0001); Dunn’s post-hoc comparison, p*** < 0.001]. (E) Distance traveled in the closed arms of WAZM was least in the trauma affected animals [Ordinary-One-Way ANOVA [F_(2,106) = 27.31, p < 0.0001]; Bonferroni post-hoc comparison p*** < 0.0001]. (F) Distance traveled in the open arms of WAZM was least in the trauma affected animals [Kruskal–Wallis test (H (3) = 61.24, p < 0.0001); Dunn’s post-hoc multiple comparison p*** < 0.0001]. (G) Total freezing in WAZM was not different between controls, trauma affected and unaffected animals [Ordinary one-way ANOVA (F_(2,106) = 2.686, p = ns)]. (H) Total time spent freezing in the EPM was higher in the trauma affected than controls and trauma unaffected [Ordinary one-way ANOVA (F_(2,106) = 35.13, p < 0.0001); Bonferroni’s multiple comparison p*** < 0.0001]. (I) Anxiety index in EPM was highest in the trauma affected [Kruskal–Wallis test (H (3) = 19.06, p < 0.0001); Dunn’s multiple comparison p* < 0.05, p***0.001]. In all the behavioral parameters of WAZM and EPM no significant difference was observed between the controls and trauma unaffected individuals. All values are represented as mean ± SEM. Controls (n = 16), trauma affected (n = 64), trauma unaffected (n = 29).