Extended Data Fig. 7: CFA does not alter intake of water during the sucrose two-bottle choice experiment.
From: Pain induces adaptations in ventral tegmental area dopamine neurons to drive anhedonia-like behavior
a. 5% and 30% sucrose significantly increased consummatory protrusions as compared to water, with similar trend being seeing with 60% sucrose as well (ANOVA Friedman’s test, **** p < 0.0001; two-tailed Dunn’s multiple comparisons post hoc: 5% sucrose versus water, ** p = 0.0036; 30% sucrose versus water, * p = 0.0423, n = 5 rats). No changes are observed in number of ingestive licks or the length of the lick between different concentrations. b. Volume of water consumed is not changed after the CFA injection during either 5% (CFA (n = 13 rats), SAL (n = 12 rats)), 30% (CFA (n = 12 rats) and SAL (n = 13 rats)) or 60% (CFA (n = 15 rats), SAL (n = 12 rats)) sucrose two-bottle choice. c. CFA decreases 5% sucrose preference during two-bottle choice (open bars -baseline, filled bars – 48 hours post CFA/SAL. two-way ANOVA for repeated measures, time: F1, 23 = 2.339, p = 0.1398; interaction (time x treatment): F1, 23 = 4.446, p = 0.0461; Sidak’s post hoc within group: CFA (n = 13) baseline versus 48 hours post CFA, * p = 0.03), while it has no effect on 30% or 60% sucrose preference. d. CFA decreases latency to withdrawal from a noxious stimulus resulting in hyperalgesia (two-way ANOVA for repeated measures, 5% sucrose (CFA (n = 13 rats), SAL (n = 12 rats)), time: F1,23 = 91.75, p < 0.0001; interaction (time x treatment): F1,23 = 63.86, p < 0.0001; Sidak’s post hoc for each group as compared to the group’s baseline session: **** p < 0.0001; 30% sucrose (CFA (n = 12 rats) and SAL (n = 13 rats)) time: F1,23 = 40.71, p < 0.0001; interaction (time x treatment): F1,23 = 20.02, p = 0.0002; Sidak’s post hoc for each group as compared to the group’s baseline session: **** p < 0.0001; 60% sucrose 60% (CFA (n = 15 rats), SAL (n = 12 rats)) time: F1,25 = 72.34, p < 0.0001; interaction: F1,25 = 43.85, p < 0.0001; Sidak’s post hoc for each group as compared to the group’s baseline session: **** p < 0.0001). The data are presented as the mean ± s.e.m.
