Figure 2
From: Fully automated head-twitch detection system for the study of 5-HT2A receptor pharmacology in vivo
Validation of the automated detection set-up. (A) Correlation between automated detection and visual count of HTR on 10-week-old mice treated with different doses of DOI. (B) Graphical scheme of the experiment and evaluation of the detector performance relative to visually-detected HTR. (C) The magnetometer system is able to detect robust HTR after administration of DOI (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.) in wild-type, but not in 5-HT2A KO mice (n = 4 per group). (D) HTR count over a period of 90 min in control mice treated with MK801 (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.) or vehicle (n = 6 per group). (E) HTR count over a 60 min period in control mice administered apomorphine (2 mg/kg, i.p.) or vehicle (n = 4 per group). (F) Schematic representation of the discriminative power of the HTR detector in mice (n = 3) showing HTR and grooming behavior induced physically by sprinkling fine wood chips on the head of the animal. Linear regression (A,B, slope value ± S.E.M.). Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post hoc test (C). Two-tailed Student’s t-test (D,E). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. (n.s., not significant, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001). PPV: positive predictive value, FDR: false discovery rate, FNR: false negative rate.
