Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: Locating causal hubs of memory consolidation in spontaneous brain network in male mice

doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41024-z

Figure Lengend Snippet: a The schematic diagram of the APA-rsfMRI experiment. b The left diagram shows the setup of the APA task. Four distinct pictures were hung on the surrounding walls as visual cues. The orange arrow indicates the direction of rotation. The 60 o sector in red shows the location of the invisible “shock zone”. The two plots on the right show the progressive decrease in the number of shocks over the trials (two-way ANOVA, F 5, 80 = 14.22, p < 0.0001), which is comparable between the 1-Day ( N = 10) and 5-Day APA ( N = 8) groups ( F 1, 16 = 0.55, p = 0.47 for groups). Similar trends can be seen in the time to first entrance of the shock zone (two-way ANOVA, F 5, 80 = 6.63, p < 0.0001 for training trials, F 1, 16 = 1.27, p = 0.28 for groups). Post hoc comparisons were performed between the last training trial (T5) and other training trials (T1–T4) or probe test (PT) with Dunnett’s multiple comparison test. The number of shocks for 1-Day APA: T1, p = 7.1 × 10 −6 ; T2, p = 7.1 × 10 −6 ; T3, p = 0.00016; 5-Day APA: T1, p = 1.9 × 10 −5 ; T2, p = 0.00051. The time to first entrance for 1-Day APA: T1, p = 0.016; T2, p = 0.017; T3, p = 0.018; 5-Day APA: T1, p = 0.034. Data are represented as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001. c The seed-based correlation analysis used to create the FC matrix of each animal. d Changed functional connections in the 1-Day and 5-Day APA, compared to their corresponding controls, on post-training day 1 and post-training day 8 (two-sample t-test, two-tailed, p < 0.05, FDR corrected; see Supplementary Table for N of each group). The red connections represent APA > control while the blue connections represent APA

Article Snippet: In each subgraph, the left image shows the injection location of AAV-pSyn-hM4D(Gi)-T2A-mScarlet, and the right image shows the fluorescence imaging together with the DAPI staining (blue). c The number of shocks during the learning trials (T1–T5) show a progressive decrease and insignificant change during the probe test (PT) after inhibition of the negative controls, VPM R ( F 5, 20 = 10.80, p < 0.0001; N = 5) and FrA R ( F 5, 20 = 10.65, p < 0.0001; N = 5). d The behavior was comparable to that of the CNO-control (CTL) group ( F 5, 40 = 7.41, p < 0.0001; N = 9). f Similar trends during learning can be seen with DREADDs in the common hubs V1 R ( F 5, 45 = 6.95, p < 0.0001; N = 10), S2 R ( F 5, 35 = 6.02, p = 0.0004; N = 8) and S1BF L ( F 5, 50 = 10.67, p < 0.0001; N = 11), or in ( h ) integrator hubs LAchSh L ( F 5, 30 = 5.31, p = 0.0031; N = 7), LO R (F 5, 35 = 6.13, p = 0.0004; N = 8), VM L ( F 5, 45 = 7.16, p < 0.0001; N = 10) and S1Tr R ( F 5, 30 = 6.40, p = 0.0004; N = 7).

Techniques: Comparison, Functional Assay, Two Tailed Test, Software

Journal: Nature Communications

Article Title: Locating causal hubs of memory consolidation in spontaneous brain network in male mice

doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41024-z

Figure Lengend Snippet: a Schematic diagram of target validation using DREADDs inhibition. Representative DREADDs expression (red) in the target areas selected from ( b ) the negative control, ( e ) common networks, and ( g ) network integration. In each subgraph, the left image shows the injection location of AAV-pSyn-hM4D(Gi)-T2A-mScarlet, and the right image shows the fluorescence imaging together with the DAPI staining (blue). c The number of shocks during the learning trials (T1–T5) show a progressive decrease and insignificant change during the probe test (PT) after inhibition of the negative controls, VPM R ( F 5, 20 = 10.80, p < 0.0001; N = 5) and FrA R ( F 5, 20 = 10.65, p < 0.0001; N = 5). d The behavior was comparable to that of the CNO-control (CTL) group ( F 5, 40 = 7.41, p < 0.0001; N = 9). f Similar trends during learning can be seen with DREADDs in the common hubs V1 R ( F 5, 45 = 6.95, p < 0.0001; N = 10), S2 R ( F 5, 35 = 6.02, p = 0.0004; N = 8) and S1BF L ( F 5, 50 = 10.67, p < 0.0001; N = 11), or in ( h ) integrator hubs LAchSh L ( F 5, 30 = 5.31, p = 0.0031; N = 7), LO R (F 5, 35 = 6.13, p = 0.0004; N = 8), VM L ( F 5, 45 = 7.16, p < 0.0001; N = 10) and S1Tr R ( F 5, 30 = 6.40, p = 0.0004; N = 7). After hub inhibition, impaired memory recall was seen, except S1Tr R . i Compared with the CTL (two-sample t-test, one tailed, uncorrected), an increased number of shocks (PT−T5) after inhibition of S1BF L (Cohen’s d = 0.76, p = 0.046), V1 R (Cohen’s d = 0.78, p = 0.045), S2 R (Cohen’s d = 0.94, p = 0.025), LAcbSh L (Cohen’s d = 1.04, p = 0.017) or LO R (Cohen’s d = 1.10, p = 0.0090) was found. Data are represented as mean ± SEM. Unless noted, statistical test is one-way ANOVA with post hoc Dunnett’s multiple comparison test with respect to T5. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001. See Supplementary Table for the abbreviations of brain regions. Number of animals is from biological independent mice. Source data are provided as a file. The brain outlines were created with BioRender.com.

Article Snippet: In each subgraph, the left image shows the injection location of AAV-pSyn-hM4D(Gi)-T2A-mScarlet, and the right image shows the fluorescence imaging together with the DAPI staining (blue). c The number of shocks during the learning trials (T1–T5) show a progressive decrease and insignificant change during the probe test (PT) after inhibition of the negative controls, VPM R ( F 5, 20 = 10.80, p < 0.0001; N = 5) and FrA R ( F 5, 20 = 10.65, p < 0.0001; N = 5). d The behavior was comparable to that of the CNO-control (CTL) group ( F 5, 40 = 7.41, p < 0.0001; N = 9). f Similar trends during learning can be seen with DREADDs in the common hubs V1 R ( F 5, 45 = 6.95, p < 0.0001; N = 10), S2 R ( F 5, 35 = 6.02, p = 0.0004; N = 8) and S1BF L ( F 5, 50 = 10.67, p < 0.0001; N = 11), or in ( h ) integrator hubs LAchSh L ( F 5, 30 = 5.31, p = 0.0031; N = 7), LO R (F 5, 35 = 6.13, p = 0.0004; N = 8), VM L ( F 5, 45 = 7.16, p < 0.0001; N = 10) and S1Tr R ( F 5, 30 = 6.40, p = 0.0004; N = 7).

Techniques: Inhibition, Expressing, Negative Control, Injection, Fluorescence, Imaging, Staining, One-tailed Test, Comparison

Journal: Patient Related Outcome Measures

Article Title: Psychological treatments for the management of postsurgical pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

doi: 10.2147/PROM.S121251

Figure Lengend Snippet: Characteristics of trials included in systematic review

Article Snippet: According to the IMMPACT core outcome measures for chronic pain, clinical trials T1–T5 utilized recommended measures for both pain and physical functioning.

Techniques:

Journal: Patient Related Outcome Measures

Article Title: Psychological treatments for the management of postsurgical pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

doi: 10.2147/PROM.S121251

Figure Lengend Snippet: Details of analyses, confounders, and results of included trials

Article Snippet: According to the IMMPACT core outcome measures for chronic pain, clinical trials T1–T5 utilized recommended measures for both pain and physical functioning.

Techniques: