video fear conditioning apparatus  (Med Associates Inc)

Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: A pH-sensitive closed-loop nanomachine to control hyperexcitability at the single neuron level

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-49941-3

Figure Lengend Snippet: A Schematics of the bilateral stereotaxic injection of AAV2/1, encoding either Ctrl or pHIL under the CaMKIIα promoter, in the dorsal hippocampus of 2-month-old wild type C57BL/6 mice followed, one month later, by whole-body bioluminescence imaging and behavioral tests after vehicle or CTZ 400a (CTZ) administration (Created with BioRender.com released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en )). B Left: Representative whole-body bioluminescence images (merged emission of both RLuc8 and E 2 GFP) of Ctrl ( top row ) and pHIL ( bottom row ) transduced mice acquired every 5 min after the intravenous injection of CTZ (0.3 mg/kg). Radiance intensity is shown in pseudocolors. Right: The quantitative evaluation of the mean (± SEM) RLuc8/E 2 GFP live average radiance values (means ± SEM) in Ctrl ( black bars ) and pHIL ( red bars ) transduced mice displays an early emission peak 5 min after CTZ administration, followed by a progressive decrease ( n = 11 mice for both Ctrl and pHIL). C Left: Representative whole-body bioluminescence images acquired 5 min after the administration of increasing doses (0.15, 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg) of CTZ to pHIL-transduced mice. Right: Corresponding RLuc8/E 2 GFP live average radiance values (means ± SEM) for the three doses as a function of time after CTZ administration. For further details see panel B ( n = 6, 10, 5 mice for 0.15, 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg). D – F The locomotor activity and hippocampus-dependent behavior were investigated in pHIL-transduced mice upon administration of either CTZ (0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg) or the respective vehicle. The control condition (dose = 0 mg/kg) refers to untreated pHIL-transduced mice. D Open field test. The total distance covered by the mice ( top ) and the time spent in the center or along the border ( bottom ) were comparable under all tested conditions, proving no interference of the pharmaceutical treatment with locomotor activity (means ± SEM of n = 7, 7, 10 for 0, 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg respectively in both Veh and CTZ groups). E Novel object recognition. No effects of CTZ were observed both in the familiarization phase ( top ) and in the recognition phase ( bottom ) when mice were exposed to one object previously explored and a novel unfamiliar object (means ± SEM of n = 7, 7, 7 for 0, 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg respectively in both Veh and CTZ groups). F Contextual fear conditioning. No significant differences in freezing times were observed both during the fear conditioning phase ( top ) and in control exposure to a new context ( bottom ) (means ± SEM of n = 7, 7, 7 for 0, 0.3, and 0.6 mg/kg respectively in both Veh and CTZ groups). In E and F, either CTZ or vehicle was administered before the novel recognition phase and the conditioning session, respectively. p > 0.05, two-way repeated measures ANOVA (D-F).

Article Snippet: The contextual fear-conditioning test was conducted in the Video Fear Conditioning apparatus (Med Associates Inc., Fairfax, VT).

Techniques: Injection, Imaging, Activity Assay, Control

Journal: Cell reports

Article Title: Entorhinal cortical delta oscillations drive memory consolidation

doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113267

Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) Schematic showing microinfusion before sleep recordings. Mice were infused either with the vehicle (saline) or the HCN channel antagonist ZD7288 (6.6 mM) just before recordings during the light phase. (B) Example time course of behavioral state (S, sleep; W, waking) and spectrogram from recordings after saline or ZD7288 injection. (C) The average delta power after saline or ZD7288 injection (paired samples t test, p = 0.033, n = 3). (D) Schematic showing microinfusion after the fear conditioning acquisition but before consolidation during sleep. (E) Percentage of freezing during baseline (BL), intertrial interval 1 (ITI1), ITI2, and ITI3 of saline- and ZD7288-infused mice on the training day. The black and blue lines indicate the average percentage of freezing of saline-infused mice (n = 9) and ZD7288-infused mice (n = 11), respectively (two-way mixed ANOVA followed by post hoc tests with Holm corrections; BL, saline vs. ZD, p = 1.000; ITI1, saline vs. ZD, p = 1.000; ITI2, saline vs. ZD, p = 0.339; ITI3, saline vs. ZD, p = 0.295). (F) The average freezing during ITI1, ITI2, and ITI3. The white and blue bars indicate the average freezing of saline-infused mice (n = 9) and ZD7288 (ZD)-infused mice (n = 11), respectively (independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.127). (G) Average percentage of freezing during the context test (saline, n = 9 mice; ZD, n = 11 mice; independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.032). (H) Average percentage of freezing during the cue test (saline, n = 9 mice; ZD, n = 11 mice; independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.025). (I) Average percentage of freezing during the 2 week context test (saline, n = 9 mice; ZD, n = 11 mice; independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.059). (J) Average percentage of freezing during the 2 week cue test (saline, n = 9 mice; ZD, n = 11 mice; independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.023). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Violin plots range from the 1st through the 99th percentile. Asterisks denote the means, whereas the horizontal bars denote the medians. (K) Percentage of freezing during BL, ITI1, ITI2, and ITI3 of saline- and XE991-injected (1 mg/kg) mice on the training day. The black and blue lines indicate the average percentage of freezing of saline-infused mice (n = 8) and XE991-injected mice (n = 7), respectively (two-way mixed ANOVA followed by post hoc tests with Holm corrections; BL, saline vs. XE991, p = 1.000; ITI1, saline vs. XE991, p = 1.000; ITI2, saline vs. XE991, p = 1.000; ITI3, saline vs. XE991, p = 1.000). (L) The average freezing during ITI1, ITI2, and ITI3. The white and blue bars indicate the average freezing of saline-infused mice (n = 8) and XE991 (XE)-infused mice (n = 7), respectively (independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.462). (M) Average percentage of freezing during the context test (saline, n = 8 mice; XE, n = 8 mice; independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.032). (N) Average percentage freezing during the cue test (saline, n = 8 mice; XE, n = 8 mice; independent samples Student’s t test, p = 0.025).

Article Snippet: On the training day, mice were placed in the fear conditioning apparatus (Med Associates, NIR-018SD or Lafayette Instrument 80014CGAT) and were presented with three blocks of tone, trace, and shock after a baseline period of 160 s. For trace conditioning, the tone (20 s) and shock (2 s) presentations were separated by 20 s. For delay conditioning, shock (2 s) was presented during the last 2 s of the 20 s-tone delivery.

Techniques: Saline, Injection