Fig. 4

Fmr1 deletion in SOM-expressing neurons does not result in cognitive or autistic-like deficits in mice. A Representative images of mPFC sections from WT-SOM and Fmr1^−/y-SOM mice, immunostained for SOM and FMRP (scale bar: 50 μm). Bottom panels show enlarged boxed regions of individual SOM-positive cells in WT-SOM and Fmr1^−/y-SOM mouse mPFC. B Time spent in the open or closed arms of the EPM, C number of marbles buried or D time spent self-grooming were not significantly different between WT-SOM and Fmr1^−/y-SOM mice. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 9–12 animals per genotype). E Preference Index (PI) for a stranger mouse (S) during Social Preference or a novel stranger mouse (S2) during Social Novelty portion were not significantly different between the genotypes. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 9–12 animals per genotype). F Fmr1^−/y-SOM and WT-SOM mice spent more time exploring a novel object during STM and LTM portions of the object recognition test. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 9–12 animals per genotype). G, H Escape latency during the training portion of MWM G or frequency of platform crossings during 60 s probe trial H were not significantly different between Fmr1^−/y-SOM and WT-SOM mice. Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 9–12 animals per genotype). I–K Fmr1⁻.^/y-SOM mice spent similar percentage of time compared to WT-SOM mice in freezing behavior in the context associated with the shocks (I, contextual threat memory), as well as during tone presentation (J, cued threat memory). In addition, there was no significant difference between the genotypes in time spent freezing to the audible cue following reactivation of auditory threat memory (K). Values represent mean ± SEM (n = 9–12 animals per genotype); ***p < 0.001; *p < 0.05; Two-way ANOVA or RM two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test, Student’s t test