Extended Data Fig. 5: In vivo fiber photometry analyses for open field and rotarod recordings.
From: Targeting thalamic circuits rescues motor and mood deficits in PD mice
a-f, Area under the curve (AUC) per sec for open field aligned to the onset of immobility (0 to 4 s compared to baseline −4 to 0 s) (a), 405 and 470 nm traces for each PF population for open field recordings aligned to the onset of immobility (b), averaged fluorescence change aligned to the end of immobility (c), AUC per sec for open field aligned to the end of immobility (−4 to 0 s compared to baseline 0 to 4 s) (d), 405 and 470 nm traces for each PF population for open field recordings aligned to the end of immobility (e), correlation between fluorescence change and mouse speed in the open field (r, correlation coefficient) (n = 5 mice per group) (f). g-j, AUC per sec for rotarod aligned to the onset of acceleration (0 to 4 s compared to baseline −2 to 0 s) (g), 405 and 470 nm traces for each PF population for rotarod recordings aligned to the onset of acceleration (h), AUC per sec for rotarod aligned to the onset of acceleration (0 to 4 s compared to baseline −2 to 0 s) for each individual session (i), 405 and 470 nm traces for each PF population for rotarod recordings aligned to the onset of acceleration showing individual session data (n = 5 mice per group) (j). Data are presented as mean ± SEM; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. NS, not significant. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test (a, d, g, i) and correlation analysis (f). F = 8.83, P = 0.004, PFCPu vs. PFSTN t = 3.42, PFCPu vs. PFNAc t = 3.83 (a), F = 0.168, P = 0.84, PFCPu vs. PFSTN t = 0.19, PFCPu vs. PFNAc t = 0.38 (d), F = 24.49, P < 0.0001, PFCPu vs. PFSTN t = 6.07, PFSTN vs. PFNAc t = 6.05 (g), 1st: F = 5.75, P = 0.02, PFCPu vs. PFSTN t = 3.02, PFSTN vs. PFNAc t = 2.85, 2nd: F = 4.816, P = 0.03, PFCPu vs. PFSTN t = 2.54, PFSTN vs. PFNAc t = 2.82, 3rd: F = 17.28, P = 0.0003, PFCPu vs. PFSTN t = 5.13, PFSTN vs. PFNAc t = 5.05 (i)
