Fig. 4: eEF2K overexpression had no effect on anxiety behaviors.

(A) Representative heatmaps for OF. (B) Percent time spent in the periphery during OF was not significantly different between groups. Cre, n = 10; eEF2K-cKI, n = 11. Student’s T-test. p = 0.1955. (C) Latency to drink in the home cage (day 4) and in the novel cage (day 5) in the NIH task. There was no difference between groups in the novel cage. Cre, n = 10; eEF2K-cKI, n = 11. 2-way ANOVA. Cre Home vs Cre Novel p < 0.0001; eEF2K-cKI Home vs eEF2K-cKI Novel p = 0.0037; Cre Home vs eEF2K-cKI Home p = 0.8920; Cre Novel vs eEF2K-cKI Novel p = 0.0790. (D) Amount consumed as percent body weight in the home cage and novel cage in the NIH task. Both groups had decreased consumption in the novel cage but did not significantly differ from each other. Cre, n = 10; eEF2K-cKI, n = 11. 2-way ANOVA. Cre Home vs Cre Novel p < 0.0001; eEF2K-cKI Home vs eEF2K-cKI Novel p = 0.0001; Cre Home vs eEF2K-cKI Home p = 0.2563; Cre Novel vs eEF2K-cKI Novel p = 0.4342. (E) No difference in the latency to consume the food pellet in the NSFT. Cre, n = 10; eEF2K-cKI, n = 11. Student’s T-test. p = 0.7989. (F) There was no difference in the combined anxiety z-score between groups. Cre, n = 10; eEF2K-cKI, n = 11. Student’s T-test. p = 0.7376. Error bars represent ± SEM. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001; Student’s T-test and 2-way ANOVA.