Fig. 1: Behavioral performance in a spatial memory task is not reflected by cFos ensemble overlap in the DG. | Nature Communications

Fig. 1: Behavioral performance in a spatial memory task is not reflected by cFos ensemble overlap in the DG.

From: ΔFosB accumulation in hippocampal granule cells drives cFos pattern separation during spatial learning

Fig. 1

a Water maze (WM) with the platform in east quadrant (E). Virtual 35 cm diameter annuli for spatial accuracy analysis (E vs W). b Exemplary mouse swim paths during training trials. c WM learning (escape latency) over 6 training days (black line: average of all mice. days 1–2, n = 12; days 3–6, n = 6). Note the rapid learning during early training (ET, n = 6 mice, *p = 0.02) and lack of improvement when overtrained (OT, n = 6 mice, n = 0.98). Mixed effects model with Šídák’s multiple comparisons test. d Tagging method. In TetTag mice injected with AAV-TRE-mKate2, cFos+ granule cells (GC) express mKate2 in the absence of Doxycycline (Dox), resulting in permanent fluorescence (cFos-tagged, magenta). Left hemisphere: Nissl from the Allen Reference Atlas70. Nuclear fluorescence identifies recent cFos expression (2nd ensemble, shEGFP, cyan). Overlap is the fraction of mKate2+ neurons expressing shEGFP. e Experimental timeline for ET mice and cFos overlap. f Time spent in annuli in probe trials on day 1 and 2 (ET mice). Heatmaps show average swim paths during probe trials (n = 6 mice, *p = 0.03, ***p = 0.001). g Experimental timeline for OT mice and cFos overlap. h Time spent in annuli in probe trials on day 5 and 6. Heatmaps show average swim paths during probe trials (n = 6 mice, ****p < 0.0001). i Spatial search accuracy (distance to platform E) was significantly higher in the OT than in the ET group (****p < 0.0001). Only ET mice improved their spatial accuracy between tagging days (ET group: **p = 0.004; OT group: ns p = 0.65). f, h, i Symbols represent individual mice, lines represent mean ±SEM. Matched two-way-ANOVA with Šídák’s multiple comparisons test. j Immunofluorescence images for cFos overlap analysis. k cFos overlap significantly higher than chance: ET: ***p = 0.0008, OT: **p = 0.003, see Supplementary Fig. 2) but similar in both groups (p = 0.99, ordinary one-way-ANOVA with Šídák’s multiple comparisons test). Data are presented as mean ±SEM. Complete statistical information in Supplementary Table 1. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Back to article page