Page 61 - AN-2-3
P. 61

Advanced Neurology                                           Voluntary running effects in PTEN knockout mouse




            A                                                  A












                                                               B
            B












                                                               Figure 3. (A) Time spent in each zone (center or periphery). (B) Time spent
                                                               in the open or closed arms of the elevated plus maze apparatus. The results
            Figure 2. (A) Evaluation of the distance traveled by female mice submitted   are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean and were analyzed
            to a voluntary physical exercise in the running wheel present in the   by two-way ANOVA followed by the Turkey post-test. ****P  < 0.0001
            animal cage. (B) Distance traveled measured in the open field apparatus.   and **P  < 0.01 for time spent at the center versus the periphery and
            Values are expressed as mean± standard error of the mean (WT, n = 13;   ****P < 0.0001 for time spent in the open arm versus closed arm in wild-
            HT, n = 9). WT animals: *P < 0.05 vs. day 01. HT animals:  P < 0.05 vs. day   type sedentary (WTS, n = 10), heterozygous sedentary (HTS, n = 10),
                                                #
            01. Repeated measures of two-way ANOVA were performed, followed by   heterozygous exercise (HTE, n = 9), and wild-type exercise (WTE).
            Tukey post-test.                                   Abbreviation: ANOVA: Analysis of variance.
            Abbreviations: WT: Wild-type; HT: Heterozygous; ANOVA: Analysis of
            variance.                                          3.6. Voluntary physical exercise reduced S6
                                                               phosphorylation and increased total NR1
            the dark chamber was measured in seconds (exposure   expression in the frontal cortex of PTEN mice
                                                                                                  +/- 
            session). After entering the dark compartment, the mice
            received an electric foot shock (0.5 mA, 3 s in duration)   To investigate the signaling pathways modulated by PTEN
            through  the  grid  floor.  Once  a  mouse  was  shocked,  it   that might be altered in HT mice compared to WT mice
            was immediately removed from the dark compartment   in the presence or absence of voluntary running exercise,
            and returned to its home cage. Twenty-four hours later,   western  blotting  assay  was  performed  on  the  frontal
            the mouse was subjected to the test (probe session), and   cortex (Figure 6J). The data were analyzed using a two-
            the fear-motivated memory was measured by recording the   way ANOVA followed by the Tukey multiple comparisons
            latency to enter the dark compartment.             test. The results revealed that female HTE mice presented
              Data obtained from the inhibitory avoidance task were   a reduction in the phospho-S6/S6 ratio compared to HTS
            analyzed  using  the  nonparametric  Kruskal–Wallis  test,   mice (F[1,18] = 6.529, P = 0.0199 for treatment factor,
            followed by post-test Dunn’s multiple comparison tests.   P = 0.0208 for HTS vs. HTE) (Figure 6A). No significant
            The results suggested an important variation between the   differences were observed in the expressions of total S6
            exposure and probe tests (P < 0.0001 and Kruskal–Wallis   (genotype factor, F[1,19] = 1.063, P = 0.3154; treatment
            test = 33.40). Post-test analysis indicated that all groups   factor,  F[1,19] = 0.3854,  P =  0.5421; and interaction
            remembered the aversive stimulus after 24 h (P = 0.0242   factor,  F[1,19]  =  1.185,  P =  0.2900),  synaptophysin
                                                                                [
            for WTS [exposure] vs. WTS [probe], P = 0.0368 for HTS   (genotype  factor,  F 1,16]  =  0.001934,  P =  0.9655;
            [exposure] vs. HTS [probe], P = 0.0034 for WTE [exposure]   treatment factor,  F[1,16]=0.06041,  P =  0.8090; and
            vs. WTE [probe], and P = 0.0366 for HTE [exposure] vs.   interaction factor F[1,16] = 0.9265, P = 0.3501), or PTEN
            HTE [probe]) (Figure 5).                           (genotype factor, F[1,19] = 0.2200, P = 0.6444; treatment




            Volume 2 Issue 3 (2023)                         6                         https://doi.org/10.36922/an.0872
   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66