Skip to main content
Fig. 4 | Journal of Neuroinflammation

Fig. 4

From: Two forms of CX3CL1 display differential activity and rescue cognitive deficits in CX3CL1 knockout mice

Fig. 4

CX3CL1−/− mice display increased baseline motor performance that is differentially affected by mFKN and sFKN. a Mice were assessed by accelerating rotarod over a period of 2 days. On day 1 (trials 1–4), no difference in motor performance was observed between WT mice, and CX3CL1−/− mice administered a AAV expressing either GFP or sFKN; however, CX3CL1−/− mice treated with AAV expressing mFKN demonstrated superior motor performance in comparison to WT mice (trials 1–4) and GFP mice (trial 1). On day two of testing (trials 5–8), mice treated with GFP displayed significantly enhanced motor performance in comparison to WT controls (trials 5 and 7). Treatment with mFKN and sFKN differentially impacted motor coordination with mFKN significantly enhancing motor performance in comparison to WT mice (trials 5–8), and showing a trend towards enhanced coordination compared to CX3CL1−/− mice treated with GFP. On the other hand, CX3CL1−/− mice treated with sFKN displayed a trend towards decreased motor coordination in comparison mice treated with GFP, and performed more similarly to WT controls. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (n = 8, F (3, 101) = 4.826, p < 0.01) with Tukey’s test to compare differences between groups. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 in comparison to WT controls for each trial. b All mice showed significant improvement in motor coordination between trials 1 and 8. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (n = 8, F (1, 101) = 84.61, p < 0.0001) with Sidak’s test to compare differences between trials within each treatment group. *p < 0.05 in comparison to trial 1. Slopes are not significantly different, as determined by linear regression (F (3, 202) = 0.8176, p = 0.485), suggesting that all mice learned the task at a similar pace. c Mice were observed using an open field paradigm to assess spontaneous locomotion. No differences in total distance travelled were observed between any of the treatment groups. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (n = 8, F (3, 57) = 2.632, p = 0.0586)

Back to article page