Fig. 1: CES produces anxiety-like behavior and transient social dysfunction, but not depression-like behavior. | Nature Communications

Fig. 1: CES produces anxiety-like behavior and transient social dysfunction, but not depression-like behavior.

From: NAc-VTA circuit underlies emotional stress-induced anxiety-like behavior in the three-chamber vicarious social defeat stress mouse model

Fig. 1

a Dimension and diagram of the customized three-chamber emotional stress cage. The length, width, and height of the customized three-chamber cage are 545 mm, 395 mm, and 200 mm, respectively. b Behavioral modeling paradigm of CES and CSDS. CES chronic emotional stress, CSDS chronic social defeat stress, CON control. c Experimental scheme of CES modeling and behavioral tests. SIT social interaction test, OFT open-field test, EPM elevated plus maze, TST tail-suspension test, SPT sucrose-preference test. d–f Results of SIT. d Time course of social interaction time in SIT (two-way RM ANOVA, group: P = 5.71 × 10−10, time: P = 0.0053, interaction: P = 0.0385; post hoc Tukey’s test, day1: CON vs. CES: P = 0.6937, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.6472, day3: CON vs. CES: P = 0.0221, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0004, day5: CON vs. CES: P = 0.0018, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0001, day7: CON vs. CES: P = 0.0192, CON vs. CSDS: P = 6.10 × 10−7, day9: CON vs. CES: P = 0.2583, CON vs. CSDS: P = 2.70 × 10−6). e Representative exploration traces in SIT on day 11. f Statistical results of social interaction time on day 11 (Kruskal–Wallis test, P = 0.0005; CON vs. CES: P = 0.9752, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0005). g–j Results of OFT. g Representative locomotion traces in OFT. h Percentage of time spent in the central zone of OFT (one-way ANOVA, P = 1.95 × 10−6; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES: P = 9.61 × 10−6, CON vs. CSDS: P = 2.30 × 10−5). i Percentage of distance traveled in the central area of OFT (one-way ANOVA, P = 3.16 × 10−5; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES: P = 0.0001, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0003). j The total distance traveled in OFT (one-way ANOVA, P = 2.88 × 10−5; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES: P = 0.0998, CON vs. CSDS: P = 1.76 × 10−5). k–m Results of EPM. k Representative exploration traces in EPM. l Percentage of time spent in the open arms of EPM (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.0016; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES:P = 0.0070, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0032). m Number of open-arm entries in EPM (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.1305; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES:P = 0.2197, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.1587). n Immobility time in the TST (one-way ANOVA, P = 9.91 × 10−5; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES:P = 0.7461, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0002). o Percentage of sucrose intake in SPT (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.0014; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES:P = 0.8943, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.0024). p Total fluid consumption in SPT (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.1401; post hoc Tukey’s test, CON vs. CES:P = 0.9671, CON vs. CSDS: P = 0.1603). n = 15 for CON mice, n = 14 for CES mice, and n = 16 for CSDS mice. The red and blue dots in the OFT, EPM, and SIT locomotion traces reflect the start and end points of the mouse, respectively. All data are shown as mean ± SEM. The P values were calculated by CES or CSDS versus the corresponding control group. ns not significant, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.

Back to article page