Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
If a successful mating was preceded by at least one unsuccessful mounting attempt it was scored as Type II pseudocopulation.
Similar(59)
Males desired just as much sex even if they were in pain, and the researchers observed no significant difference in mounting attempts or other sexual behaviors.
Mounting attempts may be repeated every few seconds to every minute or two.
In addition, the frequency of mounting attempts was also recorded.
These behavior patterns usually encompassed 2 3 successive mounting attempts (<5 sec) that occurred during the final 60 sec of the testing period.
This deficit does not seem to be due to reduced levels of sexual interest, since Fmr1-KO actually displayed more mounting attempts than WT (albeit non-significantly).
It should be noted here that even if mounting attempts would have been classified as an affiliative behavior, the effect of the Fmr1 mutation would have remained significant (data not shown).
Fmr1-KO spent less time in affiliative behaviors [F 1,50) = 4.78, p<0.05; Fig.6andand showed a non-significant tendency to display more mounting attempts [F 1,50) = 3.08, p = 0.09; Fig.6B] compared to WT.
For example, injuries were never observed on males that had been tested and housed together throughout adolescence, while mounting attempts were directed at the sides and front of a female as often as they were targeted to the flank, and lordosis never occurred.
When male test mice that had exhibited mounting attempts were excluded from the statistical analysis (data not shown), differences between the average SI responses of mice for each strain-by-age comparison were not distinguishable from those presented in Figure 2a.
Two types of pseudocopulation were scored, those that did not result in a successful mating after three attempts (Type I), and those where a normal mating was preceded by up to three unsuccessful mounting attempts (Type II).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com