Supplementary Fig. 5: Additional behavioral controls for experiments in Fig. 3.
From: Silent synapses dictate cocaine memory destabilization and reconsolidation
(a,b) Summary showing that nose poke responding (seeking) in saline (a)- and cocaine (b)-trained rats was not altered when tested 6 hr after cue re-exposure (saline active = 24.18 ± 2.69, n = 11 animals; saline inactive = 10.82 ± 1.16, n =11 animals; cocaine active = 85.20 ± 4.38, n = 10 animals; cocaine inactive = 22.30 ± 3.86, n =11 animals). (c) Summary showing that cocaine-trained rats exhibited higher levels of nose poke responding during the 10-min cue re-exposure session compared to saline-trained rats on withdrawal day 45 (saline = 14.33 ± 2.10, n = 11 animals; coaine = 37.40 ± 2.66, n = 10 animals, t17=6.69, p<0.0001, two-tail, unpaired t-test). (d) Summary showing that intra-NAcSh infusions of AGL or TGL 2 hr after cue re-exposure did not affect cue-induced nose poke responding in saline-trained rats, measured 6 hr after re-exposure (AGL active = 17.87 ± 4.14, n = 8 animals; TGL active = 12.25 ± 2.07, n =8 animals; AGL inactive = 7.00 ± 1.65, n = 8 animals, TGL in active = 7.00 ± 1.71, n = 8 animals, F1,7=4.95, p=0.0614, RM two-way ANOVA, withdrawal day 45 peptide x hole interaction). Nose poke responding during the 10-min cue re-exposure session (right) was also not different between AGL and TGL rats (AGL = 13.00 ± 2.73, n = 8 animals; TGL = 13.00 ± 2.27, n =8 animals, t14=0.000, p=1.00, two-tail unpaired t-test). (e) Summary showing that intra-NAcSh infusions of AGL or TGL 6 hr after cue re-exposure did not affect cue-induced nose poke responding, tested 6.5 hr after cue re-exposure, in saline-trained rats (AGL active = 22.13 ± 4.88, n = 8 animals; TGL active = 20.88 ± 5.92, n = 8 animals; AGL inactive = 6.75 ± 1.37, n = 8 animals; TGL inactive = 7.13 ± 1.46, n = 8 animals, F1,7=0.0, p=0.7986, RM two-way ANOVA, withdrawal day 45 peptide x hole interaction). Nose poke responding during the 10-min cue re-exposure session (right) was also not different between AGL and TGL rats (AGL = 16.25 ± 2.72, n = 8 animals; TGL = 12.13 ± 2.91, n = 8 animals, t14=1.036, p=0.3179, two-tail, unpaired t-test). (f) Summary of nose poke responding during the 10-min cue re-exposure session in cocaine-trained rats whose behavioral results are presented in Fig. 3m, n. Nose poke responding was similar between rats with intra-NAcSh AGL vs rats with intra-NAcSh TGL when the peptides were injected either 2 hr (left) or 6 hr (right) after cue re-exposure (2 hr: AGL = 29.08 ± 3.96, n = 12 animals; TGL = 27.58 ± 3.58, n = 12 animals, t22=0.2811, p=0.7812; 6 hr: AGL = 32.10 ± 1.20, n = 10 animals; TGL = 29.30 ± 2.01, n = 10 animals, t18=1.196, p=0.2471, two-tail, unpaired t-test). (g-j) Diagrams showing the localization of the infusion needle tips for all rats included in the data analysis in Fig. 3m, n and Supplementary Fig. 5d, e. Data presented as mean±SEM.
