Review

conditioning chamber (Med Associates Inc)

Med Associates Inc is a verified supplier

Med Associates Inc manufactures this product

About

News

Press Release

Team

Advisors

Partners

Contact

Bioz Stars

Bioz vStars

Buy from Supplier

Structured Review

Med Associates Inc conditioning chamber

A : Schematic of the CFC (contextual fear <t>conditioning)</t> and contextual fear memory (CFM) behavioural protocol. CFC was established using a single 2s scrambled footshock US (males 0.5 mV, females 0.7 mV) given 2min into a 3 min exposure to a novel context. Arrowhead shows the administration of minocycline (40mg/kg, i.p.) or PBS 30 min prior to either a 2min CFM recall trial (2 min Recall), a 10 min Extinction trial (10 min Extinction, 5 x 2min epochs, 1-5), or at an equivalent time without recall (No Recall). Rats were exposed to the conditioning context for 2 min 2d (long-term memory test 1, LTM1) and 23d (LTM2) after either a minocycline or control injection. B-D The effect of minocycline in male rats . (B) No Recall: There was a decline in conditioned freezing between the two LTM tests with minocycline administered males showing greater freezing behaviour than those injected with PBS (Test: F (1, 30) = 18.713, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 30) = 6.518, p = 0.016; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 1.050, p = 0.314). (C) 2 min Recall. There was no difference between minocycline and PBS-injected rats at CFM Recall (t (30) = 1.527, p = 0.137) or during LTM tests (Test: F (1, 30) = 1.136, p = 0.295; Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.689, p = 0.413; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.045, p = 0.833). (D) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction session, both minocycline and PBS-injected rats showed reduced freezing behaviour across the 10 min extinction training (Extinction: F (2.871, 86.123) =9.785, p < 0.001, Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.640, p = 0.430, Extinction x Mino: F (2.871, 86.123) =0.542, p = 0.647). Both treatment groups also showed equivalent low levels of freezing at LTM 1 and LTM 2 after extinction training (Test: F (1, 30) =1.676, p = 0.205: Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.206, p = 0.653; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.052, p = 0.821). E-G The effects of minocycline in female rats . (E) No Recall: female rats showed decreased freezing behaviour over the two LTM tests, however minocycline-treated rats showed greater freezing behaviour than the PBS-injected animals (Test: F (1, 14) = 10.714, p =0.006, Mino: F (1, 14) = 9.409, p = 0.008, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) =1.190, p = 0.294). (F) 2 min Recall: There was no effect of minocycline on freezing behaviour at CFM recall 30min after the injection (t (14) =1.522, p = 0.15). However, minocycline-injected rats showed greater conditioned freezing responses compared to PBS controls at LTM1 and LTM2 tests (Tests: F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610: Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.559, p = 0 .023; Test x Mino : F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610). (G) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction training session, all rats showed decreases of freezing response within the 10 min extinction session with minocycline-injected females displaying greater freezing responses than PBS-injected rats (Extinction: F (4, 56) =16.835, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 14) =17.362, p < 0.001; Extinction x Mino: F (4, 56) =0.907, p = 0.466). During the LTM tests, minocycline-injected animals also showed greater fear responses compared to vehicle controls (Test: F (1, 14) = 0.008, p = 0.930; Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.367, p = 0.024, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) = 0.071, p = 0.793). Results are the Mean ± SEM. Per group, n = 16 for males (B - D) and n = 8 for females (E - G). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared between LTM tests; # < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 compared between groups.

Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 75 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/conditioning chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
Average 97 stars, based on 75 article reviews

conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05

97/100 stars

Images

1) Product Images from "Sex Dependent Effects of Minocycline on Contextual Fear Memory"

Article Title: Sex Dependent Effects of Minocycline on Contextual Fear Memory

Journal: bioRxiv

doi: 10.1101/2025.11.11.687783

A : Schematic of the CFC (contextual fear conditioning) and contextual fear memory (CFM) behavioural protocol. CFC was established using a single 2s scrambled footshock US (males 0.5 mV, females 0.7 mV) given 2min into a 3 min exposure to a novel context. Arrowhead shows the administration of minocycline (40mg/kg, i.p.) or PBS 30 min prior to either a 2min CFM recall trial (2 min Recall), a 10 min Extinction trial (10 min Extinction, 5 x 2min epochs, 1-5), or at an equivalent time without recall (No Recall). Rats were exposed to the conditioning context for 2 min 2d (long-term memory test 1, LTM1) and 23d (LTM2) after either a minocycline or control injection. B-D The effect of minocycline in male rats . (B) No Recall: There was a decline in conditioned freezing between the two LTM tests with minocycline administered males showing greater freezing behaviour than those injected with PBS (Test: F (1, 30) = 18.713, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 30) = 6.518, p = 0.016; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 1.050, p = 0.314). (C) 2 min Recall. There was no difference between minocycline and PBS-injected rats at CFM Recall (t (30) = 1.527, p = 0.137) or during LTM tests (Test: F (1, 30) = 1.136, p = 0.295; Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.689, p = 0.413; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.045, p = 0.833). (D) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction session, both minocycline and PBS-injected rats showed reduced freezing behaviour across the 10 min extinction training (Extinction: F (2.871, 86.123) =9.785, p < 0.001, Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.640, p = 0.430, Extinction x Mino: F (2.871, 86.123) =0.542, p = 0.647). Both treatment groups also showed equivalent low levels of freezing at LTM 1 and LTM 2 after extinction training (Test: F (1, 30) =1.676, p = 0.205: Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.206, p = 0.653; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.052, p = 0.821). E-G The effects of minocycline in female rats . (E) No Recall: female rats showed decreased freezing behaviour over the two LTM tests, however minocycline-treated rats showed greater freezing behaviour than the PBS-injected animals (Test: F (1, 14) = 10.714, p =0.006, Mino: F (1, 14) = 9.409, p = 0.008, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) =1.190, p = 0.294). (F) 2 min Recall: There was no effect of minocycline on freezing behaviour at CFM recall 30min after the injection (t (14) =1.522, p = 0.15). However, minocycline-injected rats showed greater conditioned freezing responses compared to PBS controls at LTM1 and LTM2 tests (Tests: F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610: Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.559, p = 0 .023; Test x Mino : F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610). (G) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction training session, all rats showed decreases of freezing response within the 10 min extinction session with minocycline-injected females displaying greater freezing responses than PBS-injected rats (Extinction: F (4, 56) =16.835, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 14) =17.362, p < 0.001; Extinction x Mino: F (4, 56) =0.907, p = 0.466). During the LTM tests, minocycline-injected animals also showed greater fear responses compared to vehicle controls (Test: F (1, 14) = 0.008, p = 0.930; Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.367, p = 0.024, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) = 0.071, p = 0.793). Results are the Mean ± SEM. Per group, n = 16 for males (B - D) and n = 8 for females (E - G). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared between LTM tests; # < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 compared between groups.

Figure Legend Snippet: A : Schematic of the CFC (contextual fear conditioning) and contextual fear memory (CFM) behavioural protocol. CFC was established using a single 2s scrambled footshock US (males 0.5 mV, females 0.7 mV) given 2min into a 3 min exposure to a novel context. Arrowhead shows the administration of minocycline (40mg/kg, i.p.) or PBS 30 min prior to either a 2min CFM recall trial (2 min Recall), a 10 min Extinction trial (10 min Extinction, 5 x 2min epochs, 1-5), or at an equivalent time without recall (No Recall). Rats were exposed to the conditioning context for 2 min 2d (long-term memory test 1, LTM1) and 23d (LTM2) after either a minocycline or control injection. B-D The effect of minocycline in male rats . (B) No Recall: There was a decline in conditioned freezing between the two LTM tests with minocycline administered males showing greater freezing behaviour than those injected with PBS (Test: F (1, 30) = 18.713, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 30) = 6.518, p = 0.016; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 1.050, p = 0.314). (C) 2 min Recall. There was no difference between minocycline and PBS-injected rats at CFM Recall (t (30) = 1.527, p = 0.137) or during LTM tests (Test: F (1, 30) = 1.136, p = 0.295; Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.689, p = 0.413; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.045, p = 0.833). (D) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction session, both minocycline and PBS-injected rats showed reduced freezing behaviour across the 10 min extinction training (Extinction: F (2.871, 86.123) =9.785, p < 0.001, Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.640, p = 0.430, Extinction x Mino: F (2.871, 86.123) =0.542, p = 0.647). Both treatment groups also showed equivalent low levels of freezing at LTM 1 and LTM 2 after extinction training (Test: F (1, 30) =1.676, p = 0.205: Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.206, p = 0.653; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.052, p = 0.821). E-G The effects of minocycline in female rats . (E) No Recall: female rats showed decreased freezing behaviour over the two LTM tests, however minocycline-treated rats showed greater freezing behaviour than the PBS-injected animals (Test: F (1, 14) = 10.714, p =0.006, Mino: F (1, 14) = 9.409, p = 0.008, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) =1.190, p = 0.294). (F) 2 min Recall: There was no effect of minocycline on freezing behaviour at CFM recall 30min after the injection (t (14) =1.522, p = 0.15). However, minocycline-injected rats showed greater conditioned freezing responses compared to PBS controls at LTM1 and LTM2 tests (Tests: F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610: Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.559, p = 0 .023; Test x Mino : F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610). (G) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction training session, all rats showed decreases of freezing response within the 10 min extinction session with minocycline-injected females displaying greater freezing responses than PBS-injected rats (Extinction: F (4, 56) =16.835, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 14) =17.362, p < 0.001; Extinction x Mino: F (4, 56) =0.907, p = 0.466). During the LTM tests, minocycline-injected animals also showed greater fear responses compared to vehicle controls (Test: F (1, 14) = 0.008, p = 0.930; Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.367, p = 0.024, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) = 0.071, p = 0.793). Results are the Mean ± SEM. Per group, n = 16 for males (B - D) and n = 8 for females (E - G). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared between LTM tests; # < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 compared between groups.

Techniques Used: Control, Injection

Image Search Results

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Sex Dependent Effects of Minocycline on Contextual Fear Memory

doi: 10.1101/2025.11.11.687783

Figure Lengend Snippet: A : Schematic of the CFC (contextual fear conditioning) and contextual fear memory (CFM) behavioural protocol. CFC was established using a single 2s scrambled footshock US (males 0.5 mV, females 0.7 mV) given 2min into a 3 min exposure to a novel context. Arrowhead shows the administration of minocycline (40mg/kg, i.p.) or PBS 30 min prior to either a 2min CFM recall trial (2 min Recall), a 10 min Extinction trial (10 min Extinction, 5 x 2min epochs, 1-5), or at an equivalent time without recall (No Recall). Rats were exposed to the conditioning context for 2 min 2d (long-term memory test 1, LTM1) and 23d (LTM2) after either a minocycline or control injection. B-D The effect of minocycline in male rats . (B) No Recall: There was a decline in conditioned freezing between the two LTM tests with minocycline administered males showing greater freezing behaviour than those injected with PBS (Test: F (1, 30) = 18.713, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 30) = 6.518, p = 0.016; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 1.050, p = 0.314). (C) 2 min Recall. There was no difference between minocycline and PBS-injected rats at CFM Recall (t (30) = 1.527, p = 0.137) or during LTM tests (Test: F (1, 30) = 1.136, p = 0.295; Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.689, p = 0.413; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.045, p = 0.833). (D) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction session, both minocycline and PBS-injected rats showed reduced freezing behaviour across the 10 min extinction training (Extinction: F (2.871, 86.123) =9.785, p < 0.001, Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.640, p = 0.430, Extinction x Mino: F (2.871, 86.123) =0.542, p = 0.647). Both treatment groups also showed equivalent low levels of freezing at LTM 1 and LTM 2 after extinction training (Test: F (1, 30) =1.676, p = 0.205: Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.206, p = 0.653; Test x Mino: F (1, 30) = 0.052, p = 0.821). E-G The effects of minocycline in female rats . (E) No Recall: female rats showed decreased freezing behaviour over the two LTM tests, however minocycline-treated rats showed greater freezing behaviour than the PBS-injected animals (Test: F (1, 14) = 10.714, p =0.006, Mino: F (1, 14) = 9.409, p = 0.008, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) =1.190, p = 0.294). (F) 2 min Recall: There was no effect of minocycline on freezing behaviour at CFM recall 30min after the injection (t (14) =1.522, p = 0.15). However, minocycline-injected rats showed greater conditioned freezing responses compared to PBS controls at LTM1 and LTM2 tests (Tests: F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610: Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.559, p = 0 .023; Test x Mino : F (1, 14) = 0.273, p = 0.610). (G) 10 min Extinction: During the 10 min extinction training session, all rats showed decreases of freezing response within the 10 min extinction session with minocycline-injected females displaying greater freezing responses than PBS-injected rats (Extinction: F (4, 56) =16.835, p < 0.001; Mino: F (1, 14) =17.362, p < 0.001; Extinction x Mino: F (4, 56) =0.907, p = 0.466). During the LTM tests, minocycline-injected animals also showed greater fear responses compared to vehicle controls (Test: F (1, 14) = 0.008, p = 0.930; Mino: F (1, 14) = 6.367, p = 0.024, Test x Mino: F (1, 14) = 0.071, p = 0.793). Results are the Mean ± SEM. Per group, n = 16 for males (B - D) and n = 8 for females (E - G). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared between LTM tests; # < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 compared between groups.

Article Snippet: During 3-min contextual fear conditioning (CFC) training trial, each animal received a single scrambled footshock (unconditioned stimulus (US), either 0.35mA, 0.5mA or 0.7mA for 2s) after being placed in one of two randomly assigned conditioning contexts (context conditioned stimulus, CS) for 2 min and left in the conditioning chamber (Med Associates Inc., Vermont, USA) for a further 1 min.

Techniques: Control, Injection

A Scheme of contextual fear conditioning assay (CFC). B Peri-stimulus time histogram (PSTH) illustrating inferred spike trains from calcium responses during the footshock session of CFC in Lypd1 (top) and Etv1 (bottom) mice. Trial numbers are neuron numbers multiplied by three footshocks, sorted by footshock response score (SRC). C Histogram of SRC in BLA Lypd1 (top) and BLA Etv1 (bottom) mice showing negative correlation (anti-footshock, purple), positive correlation (pro-footshock, orange), and neutral (gray). ( N = 179 and 211 neurons recorded from 7 and 6 mice, BLA Lypd1 , BLA Etv1 respectively). D Scatter plots show the relationship between freezing frequency during fear retrieval and percentages of pro-footshock neurons in fear acquisition for Lypd1 (top) and Etv1 (bottom) mice ( n = 5 mice each, the corresponding R 2 and p -values from the two-sided test. The plots on the right show the binarized freezing traces for each mouse. E Schemes of social interaction assays (two chamber or round chamber with conspecific). F Response maps of three example neurons (pro-social, anti-social, neutral). G , H Averaged firing rate heatmaps to social distance during the social interaction assay in all neurons ( G ) or significant neurons determined with a permutation test ( H ) ( N = 64, 148, and 121 neurons recorded from 7, 6, and 5 of BLA Lypd1 , BLA Etv1 and BLA Rspo2 mice, respectively). I Violin plots of peak firing distances (significant neurons: orange; all neurons: gray). J – L Percentages of neurons with peak firing rates in pro-social, neutral, and anti-social areas for BLA Lypd1 ( J ), BLA Etv1 ( K ) and BLA Rspo2 ( L ) populations. Significance at the 2.5% level with null distribution (shuffled) is indicated (two-tailed test, mean ± SD). Significant cell numbers are for Lypd1; n = 4,8,17 and Etv1; 40,10,17 and Rspo2; 9,16,11 from the pro-food, neutral, and anti-food areas, respectively. Data are presented as mean values SD ( J – L ). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001, with all t tests being two-tailed.

Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: Genetically- and spatially-defined basolateral amygdala neurons control food consumption and social interaction

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-50889-7

Figure Lengend Snippet: A Scheme of contextual fear conditioning assay (CFC). B Peri-stimulus time histogram (PSTH) illustrating inferred spike trains from calcium responses during the footshock session of CFC in Lypd1 (top) and Etv1 (bottom) mice. Trial numbers are neuron numbers multiplied by three footshocks, sorted by footshock response score (SRC). C Histogram of SRC in BLA Lypd1 (top) and BLA Etv1 (bottom) mice showing negative correlation (anti-footshock, purple), positive correlation (pro-footshock, orange), and neutral (gray). ( N = 179 and 211 neurons recorded from 7 and 6 mice, BLA Lypd1 , BLA Etv1 respectively). D Scatter plots show the relationship between freezing frequency during fear retrieval and percentages of pro-footshock neurons in fear acquisition for Lypd1 (top) and Etv1 (bottom) mice ( n = 5 mice each, the corresponding R 2 and p -values from the two-sided test. The plots on the right show the binarized freezing traces for each mouse. E Schemes of social interaction assays (two chamber or round chamber with conspecific). F Response maps of three example neurons (pro-social, anti-social, neutral). G , H Averaged firing rate heatmaps to social distance during the social interaction assay in all neurons ( G ) or significant neurons determined with a permutation test ( H ) ( N = 64, 148, and 121 neurons recorded from 7, 6, and 5 of BLA Lypd1 , BLA Etv1 and BLA Rspo2 mice, respectively). I Violin plots of peak firing distances (significant neurons: orange; all neurons: gray). J – L Percentages of neurons with peak firing rates in pro-social, neutral, and anti-social areas for BLA Lypd1 ( J ), BLA Etv1 ( K ) and BLA Rspo2 ( L ) populations. Significance at the 2.5% level with null distribution (shuffled) is indicated (two-tailed test, mean ± SD). Significant cell numbers are for Lypd1; n = 4,8,17 and Etv1; 40,10,17 and Rspo2; 9,16,11 from the pro-food, neutral, and anti-food areas, respectively. Data are presented as mean values SD ( J – L ). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001, with all t tests being two-tailed.

Article Snippet: On day 1, mice were placed into a contextual fear conditioning chamber (Med Associates) while bilaterally connected to optic fiber cables and received three foot-shocks (0.75 mA for 2 s) at the 198-s, 278-s and 358-s time points.

Techniques: Two Tailed Test

A Schemes of AAV injections and optic-fiber placements above ChR2- and eNpHR-expressing BLAs; modified from Allen Mouse Brain Atlas, mouse.brain-map.org. B Representative images of ChR2-eYFP expression in Rspo2, Etv1 and Lypd1-Cre mice with optic fiber locations. C Left: Scheme of optogenetic activation during the free-feeding assay. Right: Food intake during optogenetic activation of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and photostimulated controls. Lypd1: n = 14 (ChR2) and 9 mice (YFP) per group with a two-tailed paired t test, t ( 13 ) = 2.457, p = 0.0288 within ChR2 (on versus off). For ChR2-On versus YFP-On: two-tailed unpaired t test, t (21) = 3.4, p = 0.0027). Etv1: n = 11 (ChR2) and 7 mice (YFP) per group with a two-tailed paired t test, t ( 9 ) = 2.492, p = 0.0343 within ChR2 (on versus off)). Rspo2: n = 18 (ChR2) and 9 mice (YFP) per group with Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test, p = 0.0023 within ChR2 (on versus off) group. For ChR2-On versus YFP-On: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, p = 0.0226. D Left: Scheme of optogenetic inhibition. Right: Food intake during optogenetic inhibition of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and photostimulated controls. Lypd1: n = 9 (eNpHR 3.0) and 11 mice (mCherry) per group with two-tailed paired t test, t ( 8 ) = 2.771, p = 0.0243 within eNpHR 3.0 (on versus off) group). Etv1: n = 8 (eNpHR 3.0) and 7 mice (mCherry) per group. Rspo2: n = 13 (eNpHR 3.0) and 10 mice (mCherry) per group. E Left: Scheme of conditioned-place preference experiment. Right: Preference index (cumulative time % in paired chamber—cumulative time % in unpaired chamber) of cohorts of mice before (pre) and after (post) conditioning. Lypd1: n = 13 (ChR2) and 7 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (12) = 4.528, p = 0.0007 within ChR2 group (pretest versus posttest), Etv1: n = 11 (ChR2) and 9 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (10) = 3.273, p = 0.0084 within ChR2 group (pretest versus posttest). Rspo2: n = 8 mice (ChR2 and YFP) per group; two-tailed paired t test, t (7) = 2.695, p = 0.0308, within ChR2 group (pretest versus posttest). All box-and-whisker plots show whiskers down to the minimum and up to the maximum value and boxes with center (median) and bounds of the box (75th and 25th percentile). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. All t tests used two-tailed.

Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: Genetically- and spatially-defined basolateral amygdala neurons control food consumption and social interaction

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-50889-7

Figure Lengend Snippet: A Schemes of AAV injections and optic-fiber placements above ChR2- and eNpHR-expressing BLAs; modified from Allen Mouse Brain Atlas, mouse.brain-map.org. B Representative images of ChR2-eYFP expression in Rspo2, Etv1 and Lypd1-Cre mice with optic fiber locations. C Left: Scheme of optogenetic activation during the free-feeding assay. Right: Food intake during optogenetic activation of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and photostimulated controls. Lypd1: n = 14 (ChR2) and 9 mice (YFP) per group with a two-tailed paired t test, t ( 13 ) = 2.457, p = 0.0288 within ChR2 (on versus off). For ChR2-On versus YFP-On: two-tailed unpaired t test, t (21) = 3.4, p = 0.0027). Etv1: n = 11 (ChR2) and 7 mice (YFP) per group with a two-tailed paired t test, t ( 9 ) = 2.492, p = 0.0343 within ChR2 (on versus off)). Rspo2: n = 18 (ChR2) and 9 mice (YFP) per group with Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test, p = 0.0023 within ChR2 (on versus off) group. For ChR2-On versus YFP-On: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, p = 0.0226. D Left: Scheme of optogenetic inhibition. Right: Food intake during optogenetic inhibition of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and photostimulated controls. Lypd1: n = 9 (eNpHR 3.0) and 11 mice (mCherry) per group with two-tailed paired t test, t ( 8 ) = 2.771, p = 0.0243 within eNpHR 3.0 (on versus off) group). Etv1: n = 8 (eNpHR 3.0) and 7 mice (mCherry) per group. Rspo2: n = 13 (eNpHR 3.0) and 10 mice (mCherry) per group. E Left: Scheme of conditioned-place preference experiment. Right: Preference index (cumulative time % in paired chamber—cumulative time % in unpaired chamber) of cohorts of mice before (pre) and after (post) conditioning. Lypd1: n = 13 (ChR2) and 7 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (12) = 4.528, p = 0.0007 within ChR2 group (pretest versus posttest), Etv1: n = 11 (ChR2) and 9 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (10) = 3.273, p = 0.0084 within ChR2 group (pretest versus posttest). Rspo2: n = 8 mice (ChR2 and YFP) per group; two-tailed paired t test, t (7) = 2.695, p = 0.0308, within ChR2 group (pretest versus posttest). All box-and-whisker plots show whiskers down to the minimum and up to the maximum value and boxes with center (median) and bounds of the box (75th and 25th percentile). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. All t tests used two-tailed.

Techniques: Expressing, Modification, Activation Assay, Feeding Assay, Two Tailed Test, Inhibition, Conditioned Place Preference, Whisker Assay

A Left: Scheme of contextual fear conditioning with photostimulation; Day 1: 3 footshocks (0.75 mA) paired with light on. Freezing measured on Day 2 (fear recall). Right: Freezing behavior (%) on Day 2 with photostimulation of two BLA populations compared to controls. Lypd1: n = 7 (ChR2) and 5 mice (YFP) per group; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, p = 0.0152), Etv1: n = 6 (ChR2) and 7 (YFP) mice per group; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, P = 0.9254. B Left: Scheme of contextual fear conditioning with photoinhibition; Right: Freezing behavior (%) on day 2 combined with photoinhibition of two BLA populations compared to controls. Lypd1: n = 12 (eNpHR 3.0) and 8 (mcherry) mice per group; unpaired t test, p = 0.0204, * p < 0.05. Etv1 groups: n = 11 (eNpHR 3.0) and 7 (mcherry) mice per group; unpaired t test, p = 0.0096. C Schemes of social interaction assay with photoactivation; Right: Cumulative duration in the social zone (%) combined with photoactivation of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and controls. Lypd1; n = 8 (ChR2) and 6 mice (YFP) per group; two-tailed paired t test, t (7) = 2.307, p = 0.0544 within ChR2 group (on versus off); Etv1; n = 12 (ChR2) and 8 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (11) = 3.785, p = 0.0030, within ChR2 group (on versus off); Rspo2; n = 6 (ChR2) and 4 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (7) = 0.6806, p = 0.5180, within ChR2 group (on versus off). D Schemes of social interaction assay with photoinhibition; Right: Cumulative duration in the social zone (%) combined with photoinhibition of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and controls. Lypd1; n = 5 (eNpHR3.0) and 4 mice (mcherry) per group; Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, p = >0.9999, within eNpHR 3.0 group (on versus off); Etv1; n = 11 (eNpHR3.0) and 5 mice (mcherry) per group; paired t test, t (10) = 3.19, p = 0.0097, within eNpHR 3.0 group (on versus off); Rspo2; n = 9 (eNpHR3.0) mice, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, p = 0.6250, within eNpHR 3.0 group (on versus off). All box-and-whisker plots show whiskers down to the minimum and up to the maximum value and boxes with center (median) and bounds of the box (75th and 25th percentile with all t tests being two-tailed. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: Genetically- and spatially-defined basolateral amygdala neurons control food consumption and social interaction

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-50889-7

Figure Lengend Snippet: A Left: Scheme of contextual fear conditioning with photostimulation; Day 1: 3 footshocks (0.75 mA) paired with light on. Freezing measured on Day 2 (fear recall). Right: Freezing behavior (%) on Day 2 with photostimulation of two BLA populations compared to controls. Lypd1: n = 7 (ChR2) and 5 mice (YFP) per group; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, p = 0.0152), Etv1: n = 6 (ChR2) and 7 (YFP) mice per group; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, P = 0.9254. B Left: Scheme of contextual fear conditioning with photoinhibition; Right: Freezing behavior (%) on day 2 combined with photoinhibition of two BLA populations compared to controls. Lypd1: n = 12 (eNpHR 3.0) and 8 (mcherry) mice per group; unpaired t test, p = 0.0204, * p < 0.05. Etv1 groups: n = 11 (eNpHR 3.0) and 7 (mcherry) mice per group; unpaired t test, p = 0.0096. C Schemes of social interaction assay with photoactivation; Right: Cumulative duration in the social zone (%) combined with photoactivation of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and controls. Lypd1; n = 8 (ChR2) and 6 mice (YFP) per group; two-tailed paired t test, t (7) = 2.307, p = 0.0544 within ChR2 group (on versus off); Etv1; n = 12 (ChR2) and 8 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (11) = 3.785, p = 0.0030, within ChR2 group (on versus off); Rspo2; n = 6 (ChR2) and 4 mice (YFP) per group; paired t test, t (7) = 0.6806, p = 0.5180, within ChR2 group (on versus off). D Schemes of social interaction assay with photoinhibition; Right: Cumulative duration in the social zone (%) combined with photoinhibition of three BLA populations compared to light-off epochs and controls. Lypd1; n = 5 (eNpHR3.0) and 4 mice (mcherry) per group; Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, p = >0.9999, within eNpHR 3.0 group (on versus off); Etv1; n = 11 (eNpHR3.0) and 5 mice (mcherry) per group; paired t test, t (10) = 3.19, p = 0.0097, within eNpHR 3.0 group (on versus off); Rspo2; n = 9 (eNpHR3.0) mice, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, p = 0.6250, within eNpHR 3.0 group (on versus off). All box-and-whisker plots show whiskers down to the minimum and up to the maximum value and boxes with center (median) and bounds of the box (75th and 25th percentile with all t tests being two-tailed. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Techniques: Two Tailed Test, Whisker Assay

Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: Genetically- and spatially-defined basolateral amygdala neurons control food consumption and social interaction

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-50889-7

Figure Lengend Snippet: Alphabetical list of abbreviations

Techniques: Conditioned Place Preference, Expressing, Saline, In Situ Hybridization, Standard Deviation

Review

Structured Review

Images

1) Product Images from "Sex Dependent Effects of Minocycline on Contextual Fear Memory"

Similar Products

Image Search Results