Figure 3 | Translational Psychiatry

Figure 3

From: Delineation of molecular pathway activities of the chronic antidepressant treatment response suggests important roles for glutamatergic and ubiquitin–proteasome systems

Figure 3

Differential effect of chronic paroxetine treatment on PSD-95/nNOS complex. (a) PSD-95, nNOS, CAPON and sGC-β1 protein level differences among groups, n=5 per group. The proteins were blotted using cytoplasm-associated fraction. (b) Arginine and citrulline levels in PLF and PSF mice, n=5 per group. (c) Affected protein–metabolite network following chronic paroxetine treatment. Upward-pointing red arrow indicates higher biosignature level in PSF compared to PLF mice. Downward-pointing blue arrow indicates lower biosignature level in PSF compared with PLF mice. Data are expressed as the mean±s.e.m. **P<0.01 vs PLF (two-tailed t-test), ***P<0.001 vs VIF, #P<0.05 vs PLF (one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s test, Figure 3a). *q<0.1 (two-tailed t-test followed by false discovery rate (FDR) correction, Figure 3b). Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining was used as a loading control. VIF mice were selected as a control group. CAPON, carboxy-terminal PDZ ligand of nNOS; mGluR2/3, metabotropic glutamate receptor 2 and 3; NMDAR, N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor; nNOS, neuronal nitric oxide synthase; PLF, paroxetine-treated long-time floating; PSD-95, postsynaptic density protein-95; PSF, paroxetine-treated short-time floating; sGC-β1, soluble guanylate cyclase-β1; VIF, vehicle-treated intermediate-time floating.

Back to article page