Figure 3.
Behavioral analysis of 3-month-old GBA1+/L444P mice compared with GBA1+/+ mice. A, Open field test analysis evaluating average velocity (independent t test: 2 GBA1+/+ outliers removed; t(10) = 2.002; p = 0.0732, N = 6 for both groups), percent in the center (one GBA1+/+ outlier removed; t(11) = 1.436, p = 0.1790, N = 6 GBA1+/+ N = 7 GBA1+/L444P), and distance traveled (one GBA1+/+ and GBA1+/L444P outlier removed; t(10) = 1.243, p = 0.2424, N = 5 GBA1+/+ N = 7 GBA1+/L444P). B, Pole test evaluated total descent time (one GBA1+/+ and GBA1+/L444P outlier removed: t(10) = 2.638, *p = 0.0248, N = 6 for both groups), turnaround time (t(12) = 0.2243, p = 0.8263, N = 7 for both groups), and time descending (one GBA1+/+ outlier removed; t(11) = 1.467; p = 0.1704, N = 6 GBA1+/+ N = 7 GBA1+/L444P). C, Fear conditioning analysis evaluated percent time spent freezing in training (repeated-measures two-way ANOVA: time: F(4,48) = 49.13, ****p < 0.0001, genotype: F(1,12) = 1.106, p = 0.3136, time × genotype: F(4,48) = 2.751, *p = 0.0386), cued fear conditioning (independent t test: t(12) = 2.069, p = 0.0608), and contextual fear conditioning (t(11) = 2.720, *p = 0.0199, one GBA1+/L444P outlier removed). N = 7 for both groups. For all graphs, error bars indicate SEM. *p < 0.05. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001.