Fig. 6

VU 155041 ameliorates skilled reaching and classical eyeblink conditioning deficits of Fmr1KO. a Latency to fall of the mouse in an accelerating rotarod. Trials 1 and 2 were performed in day 1, and 3 and 4 in days 2 and 3, respectively. WT sal (n = 11), Fmr1KO sal (n = 14), WT VU (n = 10) and Fmr1KO VU (n = 11). All comparisons to WT sal were not significant (Kruskal–Wallis followed by Dunn’s test; trial 1: H(3) = 7.538, P < 0.05; trial 2: H(3) = 0.915, P > 0.05; trial 3: H(3) = 1.754, P < 0.05: trial 4: H(3) = 1.101, P < 0.05). Fmr1KO VU compared to Fmr1KO sal was not significant at in any trials (Kruskal–Wallis followed by Dunn’s test, P < 0.05). b In the elevated path the time spent to walk from the center of a 5 cm wide bar to one of its ends is measured. WT sal (n = 11), Fmr1KO sal (n = 14), WT VU (n = 10) and Fmr1KO VU (n = 11). All comparisons to WT sal were not significant (Kruskal–Wallis followed by Dunn’s test, H(3) = 6.125, P > 0.05). Fmr1KO VU compared to Fmr1KO sal was not significant (Kruskal–Wallis followed by Dunn’s test, P < 0.05). c Skilled reaching test. Mice use their forelimbs to grasp and retrieve food pellets through a narrow slit. d Efficiency in test performance (number of pellets retrieved per attempt) in the four experimental groups: WT sal (n = 31); Fmr1KO sal (n = 33); WT VU (n = 31); and Fmr1KO VU (n = 32) during 5 days. e Classical eyeblink conditioning was evoked with a conditioning stimulus (CS) consisting of a 350 ms tone (2.4 kHz, 85 dB) supplied by a loudspeaker located 50 cm in front of the animal’s head. The unconditioned stimulus (US) was presented at the end of the CS, and consisted of an electrical shock (a square, cathodal pulse, lasting for 0.5 ms) presented to the left supraorbital nerve. Conditioned responses (CRs) were determined from the EMG activity of the orbicularis oculi (O.O.) muscle ipsilateral to US presentations. f Examples of EMG recordings collected from representative WT sal and Fmr1KO sal mice during the 8th conditioning session. Note the presence of a noticeable CR in the WT sal mouse and its absence in the Fmr1KO sal animal. g CRs after 10 conditioning sessions of WT sal (n = 10), Fmr1KO sal (n = 10), WT VU (n = 10) and Fmr1KO VU (n = 10). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. All post-hoc comparisons were to WT sal. Fmr1KO VU and Fmr1KO sal were also compared. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA followed LSD (d) or by Holm-Sidak’s (g). The data represent the mean ± S.E.M (a, d, g) and raw data and the mean (b). n is the number of mice used