2.2.3. Open field

As described previously (Yan et al., 2015), briefly, each mouse was placed in an acrylic open-field chamber (27 cm long × 27 cm wide × 38 cm high) for 30 min. Total moving distance, time spent in the center area, and number of rearing were measured using a TRU-SCAN DigBahv-locomotion Activity Video Analysis System (Coulbourn Instruments, USA). Data were presented as mean ± s.e.m. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis in Fig. 1, Fig. 2C and Mann Whitney test in Fig. S2A.

αCaMKII-F89G TG mice exhibit PTSD-like behaviors and reduction in AMPAR internalization after cued fear extinction. (A) Schematic of behavioral procedure for cued fear conditioning and extinction trials. (B) Impaired cued fear extinction in TG mice (two-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons with Bonferroni's correction). Intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection and oral (p.o.) administration of NM-PP1 could rescue the cued extinction deficits of TG mice (two-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons with Bonferroni's correction). (C-E) The higher levels of anxiety-like behaviors in TG mice in the OF (C), DL (D) and EPM (E) tests after cued fear extinction (one-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons with Bonferroni's correction). (F₁) Top panel: Representative blots of LA synaptosomal fractions illustrating an increase in GluA1/2, and phosphorylation levels of GluA1-Ser845/Ser831 in both WT and TG mice after cued fear conditioning. A decrease in GluA1/2, phosphorylation level of GluA1-Ser845/Ser831 in WT mice, but not in TG mice after cued fear extinction (n = 5 per group). Bottom panel: Ponceau S staining was used as a loading control. (F₂) Quantifications were based on the average of independent experiment. Western blotting in “WT/TG + FC” or “WT/TG + Ext” groups was performed after fear conditioning or fear extinction followed by anxiety-like behavior tests, respectively (one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparisons test). (G) Top panel: The schematic of experimental procedure for cued fear conditioning and extinction trials following by input-output recording. Red arrow indicates the time for input-output recordings. Bottom panel: Significantly higher input-output responses in TG slices than that in WT slice. NM-PP1 (0.5 μM) recovered the higher input-output responses in TG slice to normal level (two-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons with Bonferroni's correction). n.s.: not significant, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 versus WT group; $ P < 0.05, $$ P < 0.01 and $$$ P < 0.001 versus WT + FC group; #P < 0.05, ##P < 0.01 and ###P < 0.001 versus TG group; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 versus WT + Ext group. Error bars represent s.e.m. . (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)