Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Letting a Typical Mouse Judge whether Mouse Social Interactions Are Atypical

Letting a Typical Mouse Judge whether Mouse Social Interactions Are Atypical The authors noticed that there were some instances of incorrect Figure 2 citations, and below is the corrected text for the Results section and the Figure 2 legend. The authors regret the errors. Results Neither B6 nor 129S6 “judge” mice showed a significant side preference during the habituation period of the task. The time B6 “judge” mice spent in each chamber showed the hypothesized statistical interaction between stimulus strain and time period for two of the three strain comparisons ( P < 0.001 for 129S6 vs. BALB/c and P < 0.05 for 129S6 vs. Gabrb3 +/−, Figs. 1C, D). For the third strain comparison, B6 vs. BTBR, they showed a trend for overall preference of B6 across all three time periods ( P = 0.051, Fig. 1B). When all three typical vs. atypical mouse strain comparisons were pooled, the stimulus strain by time period interaction was highly significant ( P < 0.0001, Fig. 1A). The interaction terms for B6 time spent within 1 cm of the stimulus mouse were not statistically significant for the individual strain comparisons (Figs. 1F–H) but were significant for the pooled typical vs. atypical analysis ( P < 0.05, Fig. 1E). The time 129S6 “judge” mice spent in each chamber showed the hypothesized statistical interaction between stimulus strain and time period for one of the three stimulus strain comparisons ( P < 0.01 for 129S6 vs. BALB/c, Fig. 2C). Neither of the other stimulus strain comparisons was statistically significant (Figs. 2B,D). The pooled typical vs. atypical strain by time period interaction was statistically significant ( P < 0.05, Fig. 2A). None of the interaction terms for 129S6 time spent within 1 cm of the stimulus mouse was statistically significant, nor was the pooled analysis (Figs. 2E–H). Figure 2. Preference of 129S6/SvEvTac (129S6) mice for typical social interactions. (A) Total time (mean, standard error of the mean) spent in the chamber containing typical (B6, 129S6) vs. atypical (BTBR, BALB/c, Gabrb3 +/−) stimulus mice (Two‐way, repeated‐measures analysis of variance, strain x time interaction F = 3.49, P = 0.034, n = 30). (B) B6 vs. BTBR stimulus mice (interaction F = 0.49, P = 0.62; n = 10). (C) 129S6 vs. BALB/c (interaction F = 7.52, P = 0.0021; n = 10). (D) 129S6 vs. Gabrb3 +/− (interaction F = 0.80, P = 0.46; n = 10). (E) Time spent within 1 cm of the inverted pencil cup containing typical (B6, 129S6) vs. atypical (BTBR, BALB/c, Gabrb3 +/−) stimulus mice (interaction F = 0.0072, P = 0.99). (F) B6 vs. BTBR (interaction F = 1.78, P = 0.18; n = 10). (G) 129S6 vs. BALB/c (interaction F = 0.83, P = 0.44; n = 10). (H) 129S6 vs. Gabrb3 +/− (interaction F = 0.36, P = 0.70; n = 10). Bonferroni multiple comparison test run on significant interactions: * P < 0.05. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Autism Research Wiley

Letting a Typical Mouse Judge whether Mouse Social Interactions Are Atypical

Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/letting-a-typical-mouse-judge-whether-mouse-social-interactions-are-Nh5obA0Ax7

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2015 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1939-3792
eISSN
1939-3806
DOI
10.1002/aur.1321
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The authors noticed that there were some instances of incorrect Figure 2 citations, and below is the corrected text for the Results section and the Figure 2 legend. The authors regret the errors. Results Neither B6 nor 129S6 “judge” mice showed a significant side preference during the habituation period of the task. The time B6 “judge” mice spent in each chamber showed the hypothesized statistical interaction between stimulus strain and time period for two of the three strain comparisons ( P < 0.001 for 129S6 vs. BALB/c and P < 0.05 for 129S6 vs. Gabrb3 +/−, Figs. 1C, D). For the third strain comparison, B6 vs. BTBR, they showed a trend for overall preference of B6 across all three time periods ( P = 0.051, Fig. 1B). When all three typical vs. atypical mouse strain comparisons were pooled, the stimulus strain by time period interaction was highly significant ( P < 0.0001, Fig. 1A). The interaction terms for B6 time spent within 1 cm of the stimulus mouse were not statistically significant for the individual strain comparisons (Figs. 1F–H) but were significant for the pooled typical vs. atypical analysis ( P < 0.05, Fig. 1E). The time 129S6 “judge” mice spent in each chamber showed the hypothesized statistical interaction between stimulus strain and time period for one of the three stimulus strain comparisons ( P < 0.01 for 129S6 vs. BALB/c, Fig. 2C). Neither of the other stimulus strain comparisons was statistically significant (Figs. 2B,D). The pooled typical vs. atypical strain by time period interaction was statistically significant ( P < 0.05, Fig. 2A). None of the interaction terms for 129S6 time spent within 1 cm of the stimulus mouse was statistically significant, nor was the pooled analysis (Figs. 2E–H). Figure 2. Preference of 129S6/SvEvTac (129S6) mice for typical social interactions. (A) Total time (mean, standard error of the mean) spent in the chamber containing typical (B6, 129S6) vs. atypical (BTBR, BALB/c, Gabrb3 +/−) stimulus mice (Two‐way, repeated‐measures analysis of variance, strain x time interaction F = 3.49, P = 0.034, n = 30). (B) B6 vs. BTBR stimulus mice (interaction F = 0.49, P = 0.62; n = 10). (C) 129S6 vs. BALB/c (interaction F = 7.52, P = 0.0021; n = 10). (D) 129S6 vs. Gabrb3 +/− (interaction F = 0.80, P = 0.46; n = 10). (E) Time spent within 1 cm of the inverted pencil cup containing typical (B6, 129S6) vs. atypical (BTBR, BALB/c, Gabrb3 +/−) stimulus mice (interaction F = 0.0072, P = 0.99). (F) B6 vs. BTBR (interaction F = 1.78, P = 0.18; n = 10). (G) 129S6 vs. BALB/c (interaction F = 0.83, P = 0.44; n = 10). (H) 129S6 vs. Gabrb3 +/− (interaction F = 0.36, P = 0.70; n = 10). Bonferroni multiple comparison test run on significant interactions: * P < 0.05.

Journal

Autism Research – Wiley

Published: Feb 1, 2015

There are no references for this article.