Fig. 7: Ketamine blocks grooming increase caused by inhibition of dmPFC-DMS projections in SAPAP3 KO mice.

Bar and line graphs show data means +/− SEM. Black lines on bar graphs represent individual animals. Lines start and stop at individual animal’s average for that graph’s conditions. Source data are provided as a Source data file. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. a SAPAP3 KO with bilateral implants in the DMS expressing either eYFP or eNpHR3.0 in the dmPFC are injected with either saline or ketamine followed by grooming measurements. b Ketamine reduces grooming duration 1-h post-injection (two-way RM ANOVA: interaction P = 0.0181, treatment P > 0.05, time P = 0.0003, subject P = 0.0027; Sidak’s multiple comparisons: ketamine KO-eYFP baseline vs 1-h P = 0.0061, ketamine KO-NpHR baseline vs 1-h P = 0.0033; saline KO-eYFP = 5, ketamine KO-eYFP = 6, saline KO-NpHR = 6, ketamine KO-NpHR = 7). c Only SAPAP3 KO-NpHR that receive ketamine show a significant reduction in grooming frequency 1-h post-injection (two-way RM ANOVA: interaction P = 0.0278, treatment P > 0.05, time P = 0.0045, subject P = 0.0260; Sidak’s multiple comparisons: ketamine KO-NpHR baseline vs 1-h P = 0.0009; saline KO-eYFP = 5, ketamine KO-eYFP = 6, saline KO-NpHR = 6, ketamine KO-NpHR = 7). d Inhibition of dmPFC-DMS projections significantly increases grooming in SAPAP3 KO-NpHR mice injected with saline (two-way RM ANOVA: interaction P = 0.0221, laser P = 0.0167, treatment P = 0.0612, subject P = 0.0037; Tukey’s multiple comparisons: saline KO-eYFP vs saline KO-NpHR P = 0.0147, ketamine KO-eYFP vs saline KO-NpHR P = 0.0003, ketamine KO-NpHR vs saline KO-NpHR P = 0.0086; saline KO-eYFP = 5, ketamine KO-eYFP = 6, saline KO-NpHR = 6, ketamine KO-NpHR  = 7). e Neither inhibition of dmPFC-DMS projections nor drug treatment affectgrooming frequency (two-way RM ANOVA: interaction P > 0.05, laser P > 0.05, treatment P > 0.05, subject P = 0.0004; saline KO-eYFP = 5, ketamine KO-eYFP = 6, saline KO-NpHR = 6, ketamine KO-NpHR = 7).