Skip to main content
Fig. 2 | Molecular Brain

Fig. 2

From: Disruption of Foxg1 impairs neural plasticity leading to social and cognitive behavioral defects

Fig. 2

Disruption of Foxg1 results in impaired social abilities, learning and memory. a Average velocity and total distance moved in 30 mins were similar between WT and cKO mice during open-field test (P = 0.76; t test). b The duration and frequency in the center zone during the first 5 mins in open-field test were indistinguishable (P = 0.61). c Comparable open-arm time in elevated O-maze (P = 0.65). d Mice showed no preference to the two lateral chambers in the habituation phase of the social behavior test. (WT, Left vs. Right, q = 0.96; cKO, Left vs. Right, q = 0.15; one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test). e cKO mice had no preference during the social recognition phase (WT, Empty vs. Mice, q = 6.606; cKO, Empty vs. Mice, q = 1.175). f cKO mice did not show any preference during the social novelty phase (WT, Familiar vs. Novel, q = 9.033; cKO, Familiar vs. Novel, q = 0.4486). g cKO mice spent more time finding the hidden platform during the training sessions in the Morris water maze (F (7, 98) = 2.92, P = 0.0081; two-way ANOVA, time x group, repeated measure). h WT mice spent significantly more time in the target quadrant, while cKO mice did not search selectively (WT, F (2.122, 14.85) = 7.73, P = 0.0045; cKO, F (1.973, 13.81) = 0.85, P = 0.45; one-way ANOVA). i cKO mice showed less platform zone entry (P = 0.0003). j cKO mice exhibited decreased freezing time during fear conditioning training (F (3, 21) = 4.363, P = 0.015; two-way ANOVA). k cKO mice exhibited decreased freezing time during the contextual fear conditioning test (P = 0.001). l cKO mice showed less freezing time during the cued fear conditioning test (P = 0.001) and cued fear memory recall test (WT vs. cKO, P < 0.0001; cKO, Cued vs. Cued-recall, P = 0.0016;). WT, n = 8; cKO, n = 8. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001

Back to article page