Journal: Translational Psychiatry
Article Title: Impairment in stimulus-response learning as a cognitive biomarker in a model of synucleinopathy
doi: 10.1038/s41398-025-03795-5
Figure Lengend Snippet: A Schematic of Visuomotor Conditional Learning (VMCL) task. Cognitive assessments were conducted within touchscreen systems equipped with a touch-sensitive screen, a reward magazine attached to a reward pump for delivery of strawberry milkshake liquid reward and ABET cognition software ( above ). VMCL was employed to evaluate the acquisition of stimulus-response (S-R) contingencies, with subjects learning the conditional rule: “if visual stimulus A is presented, make motor response to the right-flanking window; if visual stimulus B is presented, make motor response to the flight-flanking window” ( below ). All subjects underwent VMCL testing for 20 sessions, 5-7 sessions per week. B M83 mice inoculated with aSyn PFF-1 and PFF-2 were significantly impaired at acquiring VMCL, as demonstrated by lower percent correct responses relative to PBS-inoculated mice (2-way RM ANOVA, Group x Session: main effect of group (F 2,60=10.53 , p < 0.001), main effect of session (F 2.686, 161.2=10.53 , p < 0.0001) and significant interaction (F 8,240=3.131 , p < 0.01), in which Šídák’s multiple comparisons revealed to be driven by a significant difference between PBS control and PFF-1 in sessions 2 (adj. p < 0.05), 4 (adj. p < 0.05) and 5 (adj. p < 0.05), and a significant difference between PBS control and PFF-2 in sessions 2 (adj. p < 0.01), 3 (adj. p < 0.001), 4 (adj. p < 0.01), and 5 (adj. p < 0.01)). C While all groups began at chance in Block 1 (1-way ANOVA, p > 0.05), (D) both aSyn-inoculated groups were significantly impaired relative to controls in Block 5 (1-way ANOVA, F 8.764 , p < 0.001, in which Šídák’s multiple comparisons revealed to be driven by a significant difference between PBS controls and PFF-1 (adj. p < 0.05), and between PBS controls PFF-2 (adj. p < 0.001)). E No significant difference was found in the percentage of missed trials across groups (RM Mixed-Effects Model, Group x Session: main effect of session (F 2.050,118.4= 20.55 , p < 0.0001), but no main effect of group or interaction (p > 0.05)), (F) but aSyn PFF-1 and PFF-2 mice exhibited a greater number of correction trials (2-way RM ANOVA, Group x Session: main effect of group (F 2,60= 6.008 , p < 0.01), main effect of session (F 3.240,194.4= 66.22 , p < 0.0001) but no interaction (p > 0.05)), and (G) an elevated perseveration index compared to controls (RM Mixed-Effects Model, Group x Session: main effect of group (F 2,60=4.648 , p < 0.05), main effect of session (F 3.191,171.5=24.48 , p < 0.0001), but no interaction (p > 0.05)). Furthermore, comparing task latencies, no significant difference was found in the latency to make correct choices (H) (2-way RM ANOVA: Group x Session: p > 0.05), but aSyn PFF-1 and PFF-2 mice took significantly longer to make incorrect choices (I) across VMCL acquisition compared to PBS controls (2-way RM ANOVA: Group x Session: main effect of group (F 2,60=5.384 , p < 0.01), main effect of session (F 3.202,192.1= 62.37 , p < 0.0001), and significant interaction (F 8,240=1.985 , p < 0.05), in which Šídák’s multiple comparisons revealed to be driven by a significant difference between PBS control and PFF-1 in sessions 2 (adj. p < 0.01), 3 (adj. p < 0.01) and 5 (adj. p < 0.05), and a significant difference between PBS control and PFF-2 in sessions 3 (adj. p < 0.05) and 5 (adj. p < 0.05)). No significant difference was found for the latency to collect rewards (J) (2-way RM ANOVA, Group x Session: main effect of session (F 2.275,135.9=17.67 , p < 0.0001), but no main effect of group or interaction (p > 0.05)). Data presented as Mean + SEM, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Graphics made with Biorender.com.
Article Snippet: Human aSyn PFF-1 and PFF-2 are available from a commercial source (StressMarq Biosciences Cat# SPR-322 and SPR-317, respectively), which are expressed, purified, and fibrilized using methods previously described [ , ].
Techniques: Software, Control, Blocking Assay