Journal: PLoS ONE

Article Title: Therapeutic effects of an aspalathin-rich green rooibos extract, pioglitazone and atorvastatin combination therapy in diabetic db/db mice

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251069

Figure Lengend Snippet: Summary of liver gene expression in db/db mice.

Article Snippet: Predesigned and optimized TaqMan gene expression probes for Apoa1 (Mm00437569_m1), Fasn (Mm00662319_m1), Pparγ (Mm00440940_m1), Pparα (Mm00440939_m1), Scd1 (Mm00772290_m1) and Srebp1 (Mm00550338_m1) were used for differential gene expression (ThermoFisher Scientific).

Techniques: Gene Expression

Journal: Learning & Memory

Article Title: Cue-dependent safety and fear learning in a discriminative auditory fear conditioning paradigm in the mouse

doi: 10.1101/lm.049577.119

Figure Lengend Snippet: Contextual and cued fear in a discriminative AFC paradigm. ( A ) Schematic diagram of the experimental protocol for 3-d conditioning in context A (day 1–3) followed by the first testing session in context A (day 4) and the second testing session in context B (day 5). ( B ) Percentage of time spent freezing during the time prior to the CSs (PreCS) for each conditioning session (day 1–3). Significant increase in the freezing level on day 2 indicates acquisition of contextual fear. Gray dots with lines represent the median of data sets from eight trials per day (including the CS+ and CS− trials) for individual mice ( n = 12 mice). ( C ) Percent time spent freezing during the PreCS of the first trial of the session on day 1 (Context A), day 4 (Context A), and day 5 (Context B) that represents contextual fear memory. The freezing level is significantly higher on day 4 but no difference is found on day 5 compared to that on day 1. Gray dots with lines represent data from individual mice. ( D ) Percent time spent freezing in trials with the CS+ in the testing session on day 5 (in a novel spatial context). The freezing level is markedly higher during the CS+ than during the PreCS+, indicating fear elicited by the CS+. Gray dots with lines represent the median of data sets from three trials with the CS+ for individual mice. All data in bar graphs are depicted as mean ± SEM. (*) P < 0.05, (**) P < 0.01, (***) P < 0.001. P values were obtained using the Bonferroni's multiple comparison test ( B , C ) and a paired t -test ( D ).

Article Snippet: All type of fear conditioning and testing experiments were performed in fear conditioning chambers (MED-AFC-M1, Med-Associates) individually placed in sound attenuating cubicles (NSB-B101) with an exhaust fan on the wall and a room lamp on the ceiling.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: Learning & Memory

Article Title: Cue-dependent safety and fear learning in a discriminative auditory fear conditioning paradigm in the mouse

doi: 10.1101/lm.049577.119

Figure Lengend Snippet: Learned suppression of contextual fear during the CS−. ( A ) Percent time spent freezing in trials with the CS− in the testing session with the conditioning context (day 4). The freezing level is markedly lower during the CS− than during the PreCS−, indicating inhibition of contextual fear during the CS−. ( B ) Percentage of time spent freezing in trials with the CS+ in the testing session on day 4. On average, no significant change of the freezing level is detected during the CS+ comparerd to that during the PreCS+. ( C ) Changes in freezing levels represented as the percent time spent freezing during the CS subtracted by that during the corresponding PreCS of the trial. A negative change (i.e., reduction) of freezing levels for trials with the CS− and a positive change (i.e., enhancement) of freezing levels for trials with the CS+ indicate opposing effects of the CSs on emotional responses. Note that the testing session on day 4 is performed in the conditioning context (context A), whereas the testing session on day 5 is carried out in a novel context (context B). ( D ) Comparison of freezing levels between the time during the PreCS− and during the CS− across sessions. The freezing level during the CS− becomes significantly lower than that during the PreCS− on day 3 as well as on day 4. Gray dots with lines ( A , B ) and circles ( C ) represent the median of data sets from three trials for individual mice ( n = 12 mice). All data in bar graphs in A – C and the line graph in D are depicted as mean ± SEM. (*) P < 0.05, (**) P < 0.01, (***) P < 0.001. P values were obtained using a two-tailed paired t -test ( A , B , D ) and a one-tailed paired t -test ( C ).

Article Snippet: All type of fear conditioning and testing experiments were performed in fear conditioning chambers (MED-AFC-M1, Med-Associates) individually placed in sound attenuating cubicles (NSB-B101) with an exhaust fan on the wall and a room lamp on the ceiling.

Techniques: Inhibition, Comparison, Two Tailed Test, One-tailed Test

Journal: Learning & Memory

Article Title: Cue-dependent safety and fear learning in a discriminative auditory fear conditioning paradigm in the mouse

doi: 10.1101/lm.049577.119

Figure Lengend Snippet: Discriminative safety and fear learning in a paradigm with the tone CS+ and the noise CS−. ( A ) Percent time spent freezing in trials with the noise CS− in the testing session with the conditioning context (day 4). The freezing level is significantly lower during the CS− than during the PreCS−, indicating inhibition of contextual fear is caused by the noise CS−. ( B ) Changes in freezing levels represented as the percent time spent freezing during the CS subtracted by that during the corresponding PreCS of the trial. Opposite changes in freezing levels between the CS− on day 4 (decrease) and the CS+ on day 5 (increase) indicate safety specific for the noise CS− and fear specific for the tone CS+. Gray dots with lines ( A ) and circles ( B ) represent the median of data sets from three trials for individual mice ( n = 12 mice). All data in bar graphs are depicted as mean ± SEM. (*) P < 0.05, (***) P < 0.001. P values were obtained using a two-tailed paired t -test ( A ) and a one-tailed paired t -test ( B ).

Article Snippet: All type of fear conditioning and testing experiments were performed in fear conditioning chambers (MED-AFC-M1, Med-Associates) individually placed in sound attenuating cubicles (NSB-B101) with an exhaust fan on the wall and a room lamp on the ceiling.

Techniques: Inhibition, Two Tailed Test, One-tailed Test

Journal: Learning & Memory

Article Title: Cue-dependent safety and fear learning in a discriminative auditory fear conditioning paradigm in the mouse

doi: 10.1101/lm.049577.119

Figure Lengend Snippet: Discriminative fear but not safety learning in a paradigm with tone/tone pair of the CSs. ( A ) Percentage of time spent freezing in trials with the 12 kHz CS− in the testing session with the conditioning context (day 4). No significant difference in the freezing level on average is found between the CS− and the PreCS−, indicating no apparent effect of the CS− on contextual fear in this paradigm. ( B ) Percentage of time spent freezing in trials with the 4 kHz CS+ on day 4. A significantly higher level of freezing is found for the CS+ compared to the PreCS+. ( C ) Comparison of the changes in freezing levels from the PreCS period to the CS period on day 4. A significant difference of the changes in freezing levels during the CSs indicates discriminatory responses to the tone CSs. ( D ) A positive change in the freezing level is found for the 4 kHz CS+ but not for the 12 kHz CS− in the testing session with a novel context (day 5), indicating cued fear selective to the 4 kHz CS+. Gray dots with lines ( A – C ) and circles ( D ) represent the median of data sets from three trials for individual mice ( n = 12 mice). All data in bar graphs are depicted as mean ± SEM. (***) P < 0.001. P values were obtained using a two-tailed paired t -test ( A – C ) and a one-tailed paired t -test ( D ).

Article Snippet: All type of fear conditioning and testing experiments were performed in fear conditioning chambers (MED-AFC-M1, Med-Associates) individually placed in sound attenuating cubicles (NSB-B101) with an exhaust fan on the wall and a room lamp on the ceiling.

Techniques: Comparison, Two Tailed Test, One-tailed Test