Figure 2

Behavioral abnormalities in Reln^rl-Orl/+ mice. (a–c) Performance in the open field test. The distance moved in the inner (a) and outer (b) sectors, and frequency of sector transition between the inner and outer sectors (c). Data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 23 for WT mice; n = 28 for Reln^rl-Orl/+ mice). *p < 0.05, significantly different from WT mice (Student’s t-test). (d–f) Performance in the social interaction test: the habituation phase (d) sociability (e) and social novelty (f). Data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 16 for WT mice; n = 13 for Reln^rl-Orl/+ mice). *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01, significantly different from WT mice (Student’s t-test). (g and h) Performance in the rotarod test: the training phase (g) and test phase (h). Data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 27 for WT mice; n = 28 for Reln^rl-Orl/+ mice). *p < 0.05, significantly different from WT mice (two-way ANOVA with repeated measures). **p < 0.01, significantly different from WT mice (Student’s t-test). (i and j) Locomotor activity in the habituation period (i) and METH-induced hyperlocomotion (j). Data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 14 for saline-treated WT mice; n = 20 for saline-treated Reln^rl-Orl/+ mice; n = 15 for METH-treated WT mice; n = 21 for METH-treated Reln^rl-Orl/+ mice). *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01, significantly different from METH-treated WT mice (Tukey’s multiple comparison test).