Hamsters in the experimental group were injected intraperitoneall

Hamsters in the experimental group were injected intraperitoneally with cocaine (20 mg/kg; Lannett Company, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA) Wnt drug immediately before being placed in the initially non-preferred compartment for stimulus-paired sessions, whereas they received a 0.9% saline vehicle injection before being placed in the initially preferred compartment for no-stimulus sessions. The

control group received saline injections before being placed in either compartment in conditioning sessions. To confirm that all stimulus and no-stimulus paired groups had similar initial preference and difference scores, a one-way anova was used. To assess whether the stimuli (VS or cocaine) induced a CPP, data from the pretests and final tests were used to calculate a preference score, defined as [time in the stimulus-paired compartment/(time in stimulus-paired compartment+time in no-stimulus compartment)], and a difference score, defined as [time in the no-stimulus compartment–time in the stimulus-paired compartment] (Martínez & Paredes, 2001; Meerts & Clark, 2007; Tenk et al., 2009; Bell et al., 2010; Parada et al., 2010). http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Everolimus(RAD001).html Changes in preference and difference scores were determined by subtracting pretest measures from test measures for each hamster.

In the no-stimulus control animals, average change measures for preference score and difference score were determined to provide a standard for unconditioned change. Control change measures were then subtracted from each stimulus-paired experimental animal’s scores to correct for any unconditioned change. Corrected changes in preference and difference scores were then used in one-sample t-tests within each group, comparing the value to 0 to evaluate significant changes. These statistical procedures are similar to earlier studies that Thymidylate synthase used paired t-tests to determine changes in preference and difference scores within a group (Meisel & Joppa, 1994; Martínez & Paredes, 2001; Kohlert & Olexa, 2005; Meerts & Clark, 2007; Tenk et al., 2009; Bell

et al., 2010; Parada et al., 2010). In addition, correcting for unconditioned changes observed in control animals reduces the chances of false positives, as any initial preferences for an outer compartment can sometimes be reduced after repeated equivalent exposures to those chambers (Bell et al., 2010). Significant changes in both preference and difference scores were required to determine that a conditioned place preference had been established; for simplicity, only preference scores are presented in figure format here (Meisel & Joppa, 1994; Bell et al., 2010). Here and with all other reported analyses, P < 0.05 was considered significant, and all statistical analyses were done with spss software (PASW Statistics 20; SPSS: An IBM Company, Chicago, IL, USA). Sixteen juvenile (P28) and 16 adult (P64) hamsters were weighed and randomly assigned to either the VS or the control group, n = 8.

Related posts:

  1. 080) and ideational praxis score (P = 0 061) On the contrary, no
  2. There are 20 questions which are grouped into one of four domains
  3. For each dimension, each participant received a summed score For
  4. Group III: This group comprised of 10 brackets manufactured by Or
  5. We put to use yeast surface show for experimental screening Nati
This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>