Skip to main content
Fig. 5 | Molecular Brain

Fig. 5

From: Molecular laterality encodes stress susceptibility in the medial prefrontal cortex

Fig. 5

CTGF overexpression in the left mPFC facilitates resilience. a Left panel: Representative heatmaps of normalized time spent by mice in the indicated locations without (No Target) and with (Target) a CD-1 target mouse. The upper (Non) and lower (Stress) rows represent mice injected with AAV-mCherry in the left hemisphere of the mPFC (Control). Right panel: Representative heatmaps of normalized time spent by mice in the indicated locations without (No Target) and with (Target) a CD-1 target mouse. The upper (Non) and lower (Stress) rows represent mice injected with AAV-mCTGF in the left hemisphere of the mPFC (L-CTGF). b Upper panel: Confirmation of CTGF overexpression by Western blot analysis. Lower panel: Quantitative analysis of CTGF overexpression, presented as the ratio of CTGF/β-actin, as expressed in arbitrary units. Image quantification and analysis were done using ImageJ (**p < 0.01; Control, n = 4; Overexpression, n = 4, t6 = -6.142, t-test). c Left panel: Interaction times of control mice (Control) with CD-1 mice under non-stressed (Non) and stressed (Stress) conditions, presented as means ± standard deviation. Open bar, time spent in the interaction zone without a target (No target); closed bar, time spent with a target present (Target) (For stress, F(1, 32) = 2.517, p = 0.122, target, F(1, 32) = 29.886, **p < 0.001, For stress \(\times\) target, F(1, 32) = 9.537, **p = 0.004, two-way RM ANOVA; within non-stressed, the effect of target, **p < 0.001; within stressed, the effect of target, p = 0.063; within target presence, effect of stress, **p = 0.004; Post-hoc analysis with Holm-Sidak method). Right panel: Comparison of time spent in the interaction zone by non-stressed (Non) and stressed (Stress) mice with CTGF overexpression in the left mPFC. Interaction times of left-mPFCCTGF mice (L-CTGF) with CD-1 mice under non-stressed and stressed conditions, presented as means ± standard deviation. Open bar, time spent in the interaction zone without a target (No target); closed bar, time spent in the interaction zone when a target is present (Target) (For stress, F(1, 27) = 0.0540, p = 0.818, main target effect, F(1, 27) = 20.560, **p < 0.001, stress \(\times\) target interaction, F(1, 27) = 0.266, two-way RM ANOVA, within non-stressed, the effect of target,**p < 0.001; within stressed, the effect of target, *p = 0.021; Post-hoc analysis with Holm-Sidak method). d Upper: Experimental scheme for investigating the effect of CTGF overexpression in the left mPFC on changes in behavior in response to acute stress (forced swim stress). Lower left panel: Comparison of immobility latency in the forced swim stress (acute stress) between mice with CTGF overexpression in the left mPFC (L-CTGF) and those with injection of control virus in the left mPFC (control). Black circles, control; blue circles, L-CTGF (p = 0.110 for Control vs. L-CTGF, t12 = 1.728, t-test). Lower right panel: Comparison of immobility time during the last 4 min of the forced swim stress between control and L-CTGF mice (p = 0.758 for Control vs. L-CTGF, t12 = 0.315, t-test)

Back to article page