Genetic manipulation of STEP reverses behavioral abnormalities in a fragile X syndrome mouse model
Article first published online: 6 APR 2012
© 2012 The Authors. Genes, Brain and Behavior © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society
Genes, Brain and Behavior
Volume 11, Issue 5, pages 586–600, July 2012
How to Cite
Goebel-Goody, S. M., Wilson-Wallis, E. D., Royston, S., Tagliatela, S. M., Naegele, J. R. and Lombroso, P. J. (2012), Genetic manipulation of STEP reverses behavioral abnormalities in a fragile X syndrome mouse model. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 11: 586–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2012.00781.x
- Issue published online: 2 JUL 2012
- Article first published online: 6 APR 2012
- Accepted manuscript online: 8 MAR 2012 12:00AM EST
- Received 15 December 2011, revised 9 February 2012 and 5 March 2012, accepted 6 March 2012
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:
Figure S1:Expression of GAPDH is not significantly altered by genotype or DHPG treatment. A two-way ANOVA indicated no significant main effect of genotype (F1,8 = 2.55, P > 0.05), treatment (F1,8 = 3.05, P > 0.05), or genotype × treatment interaction (F1,8 = 0.14, P > 0.05). Moreover, pairwise comparisons within each genotype failed to detect any significant differences in GAPDH levels after DHPG treatment (Fmr1WT: t4 = 1.22, P > 0.05; Fmr1KO: t4 = 1.38, P > 0.05; two-sample t test). For these reasons, we normalized all protein signals in Fig. 1 to GAPDH. Similar results were obtained when normalizing to ERK1/2 and tubulin (data not shown); however, we had concerns using either of these in this study. Specifically, ERK1/2 is a STEP substrate and phosphorylation of ERK1/2 is dysregulated in Fmr1KOmice (Paul et al. 2003; Kim et al. 2008; Osterweil et al. 2010). Moreover, because abnormal dendritic spine morphology is a hallmark of Fmr1KO mice and in FXS humans (Comery et al., 1997), we felt that use of tubulin for normalization was inappropriate because of its role in regulating cytoskeletal dynamics.
Figure S2:No significant differences are detected among genotypes in sociability or preference for social novelty in the social choice task. (a) Pairwise comparisons indicate that each genotype spends significantly more time in close proximity to the mouse compared with the cup [*Ps ≤ 0.05, two-sample t test: STEPWT/Fmr1WT (t14 = 2.41), STEPHT/Fmr1WT (t20 = 5.09), STEPKO/Fmr1WT (t10 = 5.43), STEPWT/Fmr1KO (t24 = 6.72), STEPHT/Fmr1KO (t14 = 5.68) and STEPKO/Fmr1KO (t10 = 5.35)], indicating appropriate sociability. (b) No significant genotypic differences are found in the socialization index (% of time spent in close proximity to the mouse relative to the total time spent in close proximity to the mouse and cup). (c) Pairwise comparisons indicate that none of the genotypes spend more time with the novel mouse than the familiar one [Ps > 0.05, two-sample t test: STEPWT/Fmr1WT (t14 = −0.31), STEPHT/Fmr1WT (t20 = 04), STEPKO/Fmr1WT (t10 = 0.73), STEPWT/Fmr1KO (t24 = 1.96), STEPHT/Fmr1KO (t14 = 1.18) and STEPKO/Fmr1KO (t10 = 0.23)], suggesting lack of social novelty preference. (d) No significant genotypic differences are found in the social novelty index (% of time spent in close proximity to the novel mouse relative to the total time spent in close proximity to the novel and familiar mice). Data represent the mean for each measure ± SEM.
Figure S3:No significant differences are detected among genotypes in open-field activity or marble burying. (a) Total distance traveled in the open-field arena (5 min) is not significantly different between groups. (b) Genotype also does not affect the ratio of center to total distance traveled in our study. (c) The number of marbles buried ≥40% does not differ significantly between genotypes. Data represent the mean for each measure ± SEM [open-field activity: STEPWT/Fmr1WT (n = 12), STEPHT/Fmr1WT (n = 14), STEPKO/Fmr1WT (n = 9), STEPWT/Fmr1KO (n = 20), STEPHT/Fmr1KO (n = 17) and STEPKO/Fmr1KO (n = 7); marble burying: STEPWT/Fmr1WT (n = 11), STEPHT/Fmr1WT (n = 14), STEPKO/Fmr1WT (n = 11), STEPWT/Fmr1KO (n = 17), STEPHT/Fmr1KO (n = 11) and STEPKO/Fmr1KO (n = 10)].
Table S1:Original numbers of mice included in each cohort for behavioral analysis. A total of eight mice (three STEPWT/Fmr1KO and five STEPHT/Fmr1KO) were assessed in open field but did not complete the remainder of the behavioral battery because they died from natural causes before the experiment. (SZ, seizure, n.e., not examined).
As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer-reviewed and may be re-organized for online delivery, but are not copy-edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.
|GBB_781_sm_FigureS1.tif||269K||Supporting info item|
|GBB_781_sm_FigureS2.tif||322K||Supporting info item|
|GBB_781_sm_FigureS3.tif||260K||Supporting info item|
|GBB_781_sm_TableS1.doc||30K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.