Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • br Methods and materials br Results

    2021-09-08


    Methods and materials
    Results To examine the fear conditioning effects of the pre-exposure, drug, and sex factors in the total latency time, a 2 × 3 × 2 three-way ANOVA indicated that PCI32765 australia significant differences occurred in the drug (F2109 = 14.44, p < 0.05), pre-exposure × drug (F2109 = 27.45, p < 0.05), drug × sex (F2109 = 14.05, p < 0.05), pre-exposure × drug × sex (F2109 = 14.82, p < 0.05). Non-significant differences occurred in sex (F1109 = 0.31, p > 0.05) and pre-exposure × sex (F1109 = 0.48, p > 0.05). There was probably a significant difference between the non-pre-exposure and pre-exposure conditions (F1109 = 3.52, p = 0.06). It means that the pre-exposure and drug manipulations might affect the total latency time. However, the sex factor did not show the sexual differences in the total latency time. Importantly, the interactions for pre-exposure × drug, drug × sex, and pre-exposure × drug × sex were significant differences. Therefore, the pre-exposure, drug, and sex interactions needed to be further analyzed (Table 1). To test the pre-exposure and drug interaction in fear conditioning, a 2 × 3 two-way ANOVA was analyzed to show that a non-significant difference was found in the pre-exposure factor (F1115 = 2.00, p > 0.05). Significant differences occurred in drug (F2115 = 8.58, p < 0.05) and the pre-exposure × drug interaction (F2115 = 18.63, p < 0.05). Furthermore, one-way ANOVA indicated that significant differences occurred for the factor of group when combing pre-exposure and drug (F5115 = 12.08, p < 0.05). Moreover, Tukey's HSD post hoc tests indicated that the latency time of MK-801 and NMDA in the non-pre-exposure groups was significantly lower than that of the saline in the non-pre-exposure group (both, p < 0.05), respectively. Therefore, MK-801and NMDA administrations decreased fear conditioning. The total latency time of the saline in the pre-exposure group was significantly lower than that of the saline in the non-pre-exposure group (p < 0.05), indicating that pre-exposure interfered with fear conditioning and that latent inhibition occurred. The total latency time of the NMDA injection in pre-exposure was significantly higher than that of the NMDA injection in the non-pre-exposure (p < 0.05), indicating that pre-exposure blunted the effects of NMDA in decreasing the latency time. The total latency time of the MK-801 injection in pre-exposure was not significantly different from that of the MK-801 injection in non-pre-exposure (p > 0.05), indicating that pre-exposure did not affect the effects of MK-801 in decreasing the latency time (Fig. 2). Therefore, glutamate drugs, regardless of whether red algae were agonist NMDA or antagonist MK-801 injections, did not affect latent inhibition when injected in pre-exposure. Moreover, glutamate antagonist MK-801 and agonist NMDA decreased fear conditioning in non-pre-exposure. Pre-exposure blocked fear conditioning and latent inhibition occurred. In addition, pre-exposure interfered with NMDA (but not MK-801) effects to decrease fear conditioning. To test fear conditioning in the interaction of pre-exposure and drug, a 2 × 2 two-way ANOVA was analyzed to reveal that non-significant differences occurred in pre-exposure (F1117 = 1.80, p > 0.05), sex (F1117 = 0.39, p > 0.05), and pre-exposure × sex (F1117 = 0.02, p > 0.05; Fig. 3). Therefore, the factor of sex did not affect latent inhibition, and pre-exposure interfered with the subsequent fear conditioning. To measure fear conditioning in the drug and sex interaction, a 2 × 2 two-way ANOVA was analyzed to reveal that significant differences occurred in drug (F2115 = 9.06, p < 0.05) and drug × sex (F2115 = 9.88, p < 0.05). A non-significant difference occurred in sex (F1115 = 0.41, p > 0.05; Fig. 4). Furthermore, one-way ANOVA indicated that significant differences occurred for the factor of group when combing drug and sex (F5115 = 7.72, p < 0.05). Moreover, Tukey's HSD post hoc tests indicated that the total latency time of the NMDA injection in the male group was significantly lower than that of the saline injection in the male group (p < 0.05). The total latent time of the MK-801 injection in the male group was not significantly different compared with that of the saline injection in the male group (p > 0.05). The total latency time of the MK-801 injection in the female group was significantly lower than that of the saline injection in the female group (p < 0.05). The total latency time of the NMDA injection in the female group was not significantly different than that of the saline injection in the female group (p > 0.05; Fig. 4). Therefore, the NMDA injection interfered with fear conditioning in males but not females. The MK-801 injection blunted fear conditioning in females but not males.