Fig. 1

Comparison of the forced swim test results between study groups. For LPS treatment, 1 indicates administration while 0 indicates no administration. When combined with other treatments, LPS (0.83 mg/kg, i.p.) was administered 30 min after either GM-CSF (30 μg kg, i.p.) or fluoxetine (30 mg/kg, i.p.). Statistical significance was analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons with the Tukey post hoc test. a The timeline of our experimental process. b Changes in mobility times in the OFT were not significant following fluoxetine (p = .499) or GM-CSF (p = .660) treatment regardless of LPS administration. c Changes in the number of gridline crossings were not significant following fluoxetine (p = .957) or GM-CSF (p = .929) treatment regardless of LPS administration. d Changes in immobility times in the FST were not significant following fluoxetine treatment regardless of LPS administration (p = .918). In contrast, GM-CSF treatment showed a significant interaction with LPS administration (p < .001). GM-CSF decreased immobility times significantly when followed by LPS administration (p < .001) but showed no effect when used alone (p = .940). e Latency times were measured from the beginning of the 4-min test period. Changes in latency times were not significant following fluoxetine treatment regardless of LPS administration (p = .322). However, GM-CSF treatment showed a significant interaction with LPS administration (p < .001). GM-CSF decreased latency times significantly when followed by LPS administration (p < .001) but showed no effect when used alone (p = .096)