None of these two tasks yielded a significant genotype main effect.
In contrast, pre-exposed GluR2-cKOs did not benefit from this experience (main effect of genotype (F (1, 46) = 16.07, p<.05, main effect of exposure (F (1, 46) = 14.77, p<.05), significant genotype x exposure interaction (F (1, 46) = 9.874, p<.05).
A RM anova comparing EPSP potentiation in the two genotypes immediately, and 40 min after induction, revealed no main effect of genotype or time (all F<2.5, P>0.10), but a significant genotype by time interaction (F1,8 = 25.8, P<0.005).
Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed neither a significant genotype × chamber interaction for the number of entries nor a main effect of genotype, but did show a significant main effect of the chamber (F(1.533, 76.638) = 403.012, p < 0.001).
Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed neither a significant genotype × chamber interaction for the number of entries nor a significant main effect of genotype, but did show a significant main effect of the chamber (F(1.669, 83.456) = 346.789, p < 0.001).
In the social novelty preference session, two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed neither a significant genotype × side interaction in time spent in the interaction zones nor a significant main effect of genotype, but did reveal a significant main effect of both sides (F 1, 50) = 17.247, p < 0.001).
Whereas the transcriptome shows highly significant genotype (24% of the variance) and G × D interaction effects (5.3%), but no main effect of diet (<1%), the metabolome shows highly significant genotype (16%) and diet (9%) effects but only limited interaction (2%).
There was a main effect of genotype on rotorod times in 3 month old animals (p = 0.002), and planned comparisons revealed significant genotype effects on days 1, 2, and 4 of testing.
At later time points, however, there were significant genotype differences.
A significant genotype effect was also observed in vGAT puncta (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.0005).
