Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Development

Temporary Depletion of Microglia during the Early Postnatal Period Induces Lasting Sex-Dependent and Sex-Independent Effects on Behavior in Rats

Jonathan W. VanRyzin, Stacey J. Yu, Miguel Perez-Pouchoulen and Margaret M. McCarthy
eNeuro 29 November 2016, 3 (6) ENEURO.0297-16.2016; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0297-16.2016
Jonathan W. VanRyzin
1Program in Neuroscience, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan W. VanRyzin
Stacey J. Yu
2Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stacey J. Yu
Miguel Perez-Pouchoulen
2Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Miguel Perez-Pouchoulen
Margaret M. McCarthy
1Program in Neuroscience, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
2Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Margaret M. McCarthy
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Treatment and behavioral testing timeline. Schematic depicting the ages at which treatments and behavioral testing were performed.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Microglia numbers are reduced after clodronate treatment and rapidly repopulate. Coronal sections of brains from PN5 VEH-treated (a, d, g, j) and LC-treated (b, e, h, k) rats. Representative images from sections labeled for Iba1 and counterstained with hematoxylin from the hippocampus (a, b), cortex (d, e), amygdala (g, h), and hypothalamus (j, k). Quantification of Iba1+ cell density in the hippocampus (c), cortex (f), amygdala (i), and hypothalamus (l) at PN5, 10, and 15. Scale bars = 500 μm (a, b, g, h, j, k) or 250 μm (d, e). Bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (green) rats of both sexes. Open circles indicate data from individual female rats, and triangles, from male rats. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. n = 2–3 per treatment.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Microglia depletion alters the development of early reflexes, behaviors, and body weight throughout life. Body weight (in grams) in female (a) and male (b) rats measured daily from PN0 to PN90. c, Time (in seconds) for rat pups to retreat from an edge (cliff aversion). d, Time (in seconds) for rat pups to successfully right themselves (surface righting). e, Duration (in seconds) rat pups hung from their forepaws before falling (wire hang). f, Latency (in seconds) for rat pups to reverse orientation and face upward on an incline (negative geotaxis). g, Latency (in seconds) for rat pups to leave a designated area (locomotion). Solid lines indicate group means for VEH-treated (black; a–g) and LC-treated (red; a) females, LC-treated males (blue; b), and LC-treated rats of both sexes (green; c–g). Shaded regions indicate ± SEM. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. n = 18–20 per treatment.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Postnatal microglia depletion impairs nest-seeking behavior and decreases USV emission. Quantification of data from the two-choice nest-seeking task represented as average score per day (a), average total score summed across all testing days (b), and average latency (in seconds) to reach either goal arm of the testing apparatus (c). d, Quantification of the number of USVs produced by pups when separated from the mother on PN8. Solid lines and bars indicate group means for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (green) rats of both sexes. Shaded regions and error bars indicate ± SEM. Open circles represent data from individual rats. Horizontal dashed line indicates score equal to chance (a, b). ***p < 0.001. n = 18–20 (a–c) and 13–14 (d) per treatment.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Postnatal microglia depletion induces selective memory impairment in juvenile rats. a, Percentage successful spontaneous alternations in a T-maze from PN25 to PN29. b, Social recognition index calculated on PN30 after a 30-min retention interval. c, Novel object recognition index calculated after a 1-h (PN26) and 24-h (PN27) retention interval. Bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (green) rats of both sexes. Open circles represent data from individual rats. Horizontal dashed line indicates score equal to chance (a–c). *p < 0.05. #p < 0.01 compared with chance. n = 18–20 (a) and 13–16 (b, c) per treatment.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Postnatal microglia depletion increases locomotion, center time in the open field, and open arm time in the elevated plus maze in juvenile rats. Center time (a; in seconds) and gridline crosses (b) in an open field arena on PN25. c, Percentage of time in the open arms of an elevated plus maze on PN32. Bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (green) rats of both sexes. Open circles represent data from individual rats. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. n = 18–20 per treatment.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Microglia-depleted animals exhibit decreased fear and avoidance but display risk-assessing behaviors. Quantification of data from the predator odor exposure test (PN33) for time (in seconds) spent in various behaviors including time behind the barrier (a), freezing behavior (b), stretch-attend behavior (c), stretch-locomotion behavior (d), number of stimulus cloth approaches (e), and stimulus cloth interaction duration (f). Bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (green) rats of both sexes. Open circles represent data from individual rats. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. n = 18–20 per treatment.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Postnatal microglia depletion induces deficits in adult male sex behaviors. Quantification of various components of male sex behavior including number of mounts (a), latency to first mount (b), number of intromissions (c), latency to first intromission (d), number of ejaculations (e), and latency to first ejaculation (f). Solid bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (blue) male rats. Open circles represent data from individual rats. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. n = 7–10 per treatment.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Adult female sex behavior is unchanged after postnatal microglia depletion. Quantification of female sexual proceptivity: number of hops and darts (a) and solicitations (b) and receptivity lordosis quotient (c). Solid bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (red) female rats. Open circles represent data from individual rats. n = 9–10 per treatment.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Factor analysis results. (a) Behavior factor loadings for each named factor. Longer, saturated bars indicate stronger loadings, with green indicating positive loading and black indicating negative loading. (b) Loading scores for VEH and LC rats plotted for each factor. The values in parentheses represent the percentage of total variance accounted for by each factor. Bars indicate group means ± SEM for VEH-treated (black) and LC-treated (green) rats of both sexes. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. n = 13–16 per treatment.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Summary of statistical analyses.

    LineData structureType of testDescription of analysisTest valuep-valueEffect sizePower or 95% CI
    aNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPN5 hippocampus: VEH vs. LCt((2.9847) = 5.6670.011d = 4.6250.984
    bNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN5 amygdala: VEH vs. LCt(3.7237) = 5.9960.005d = 2.380.596
    cNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN5 cortex: VEH vs. LCt(3.3363) = 2.9150.054d = 4.8960.991
    dNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN5 hypothalamus: VEH vs. LCt(3.7531) = 2.1080.059d = 3.0640.798
    eNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN10 hippocampus: VEH vs. LCt(1.0548) = –0.8750.536d = 1.0450.13
    fNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN10 amygdala: VEH vs. LCt(2.6755) = –3.9410.036d = 2.4610.457
    gNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN10 cortex: VEH vs. LCt(1.0034) = –2.0130.293d = 3.4090.702
    hNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN10 hypothalamus: VEH vs. LCt(1.196) = –1.2570.401d = 1.420.197
    iNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN15 hippocampus: VEH vs. LCt(1.0067) = –1.2480.429d = 1.2480.22
    jNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN15 amygdala: VEH vs. LCt(1.1786) = –1.4370.36d = 1.2690.225
    kNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN15 cortex: VEH vs. LCt(1.312) = –1.2690.384d = 1.4370.274
    lNormal distributionWelch's t-testPN15 hypothalamus: VEH vs. LCt(1.0299) = 0.2540.841d = 0.2540.057
    Body weight
    mNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,29) = 236.343<0.001η2 = 0.0681
    Female body weight
    nNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,14) = 0.0770.785η2 = 0.0720.058
    oNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(1.146,16.037) = 617.607<0.001η2 = 0.9741
    pNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(1.146,16.07) = 2.8420.108η2 = 0.0040.375
    Male body weight
    qNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,15) = 6.0450.027η2 = 0.2870.633
    rNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(1.626,24.387) = 2222.172<0.001η2 = 0.9921
    sNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(1.626,24.387) = 2.0190.161η2 = 0.0010.341
    Cliff aversion
    tNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 1.1650.288η2 = 0.0330.183
    uNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 0.3810.541η2 = 0.0110.092
    vNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(5,180) = 9.473<0.001η2 = 0.1551
    wNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(5,180) = 1.4600.24η2 = 0.0310.263
    Surface righting
    xNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.1770.676η2 = 0.0040.069
    yNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 9.9990.003η2 = 0.2170.868
    zNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(5,180) = 3.9730.014η2 = 0.0940.944
    aaNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(5,180) = 2.1340.11η2 = 0.0510.489
    Wire hang
    bbNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.9340.34η2 = 0.0150.156
    ccNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 25.742<0.001η2 = 0.0830.999
    ddNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(4,144) = 32.229<0.001η2 = 0.3671
    eeNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(4,144) = 2.2230.087η2 = 0.0320.561
    Negative geotaxis
    ffNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0030.955η2 < 0.0000.05
    ggNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 12.680.001η2 = 0.0240.934
    hhNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(9,324) = 44.323<0.001η2 = 0.4931
    iiNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(9,324) = 1.2280.291η2 = 0.0150.492
    Locomotion
    jjNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 1.1090.3η2 = 0.0080.176
    kkNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 93.876<0.001η2 = 0.7231
    llNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(9,324) = 26.712<0.001η2 = 0.3781
    mmNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(9,324) = 7.873<0.001η2 = 0.0881
    nnNormal distributionWelch's t-testPost hoc: PN5 LC vs. VEHt(29.15) = –0.3980.694; α = 0.05d = 0.1250.066
    ooNormal distributionWelch's t-testPost hoc: PN6 LC vs. VEHt(34.126) = 0.7660.449; α = 0.025d = 0.250.117
    ppNormal distributionWelch's t-testPost hoc: PN7 LC vs. VEHt(24.031) = 1.8690.074; α = 0.0125d = 0.6280.469
    qqNormal distributionWelch's t-testPost hoc: PN8 LC vs. VEHt(34.211) = 1.8880.068; α = 0.01d = 0.6180.456
    rrNormal distributionWelch's t-testPost hoc: PN9 LC vs. VEHt(34.971) = 1.5140.139; α = 0.01667d = 0.4940.315
    ssNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: PN10 LC vs. VEHt(34.907) = 4.212<0.001; α = 0.00714d = 1.3740.984
    ttNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: PN11 LC vs. VEHt(35.873) = 4.639<0.001; α = 0.0625d = 1.5030.994
    uuNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: PN12 LC vs. VEHt(31.565) = 3.0960.004; α = 0.0083d = 1.0210.864
    vvNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: PN13 LC vs. VEHt(35.123) = 5.448<0.001; α = 0.0056d = 1.7450.999
    wwNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: PN14 LC vs. VEHt(35.301) = 8.084<0.001; α = 0.005d = 2.6311
    Nest seeking total score
    xxNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.00020.989η2 < 0.0000.05
    yyNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(34.052) = 3.927<0.001d = 1.2850.97
    Nest seeking over time
    zzNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0150.904η2 < 0.0000.05
    aaaNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 15.626<0.001η2 = 0.0430.97
    bbbNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(10,360) = 2.4230.008η2 = 0.0530.943
    cccNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(10,360) = 1.0870.371η2 = 0.0280.46
    Nest seeking latency
    dddNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.2780.602η2 = 0.0080.081
    eeeNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: ageF(10,360) = 47.962<0.001η2 = 0.4581
    fffNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 0.0750.786η2 = 0.0020.058
    gggNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × ageF(10,360) = 0.3690.847η2 = 0.0040.137
    Isolation-induced USVs
    hhhNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,23) = 0.2530.62η2 = 0.0040.077
    iiiNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(23.928) = 7.337<0.001d = 2.7950.999
    Spontaneous alternations
    jjjNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 1.8020.188η2 = 0.0430.257
    kkkNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(33.907) = 2.3270.026d = 0.7620.626
    Social recognition index
    lllNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,25) = 0.2990.59η2 = 0.010.062
    mmmNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(21.744) = 1.8220.083d = 0.7020.441
    nnnNormal distributionOne sample t-testVEH vs. 0.50t(15) = 3.5990.003d = 0.90.92
    oooNormal distributionOne sample t-testLC vs. 0.50t(12) = 0.2240.827d = 0.0620.055
    Novel object: 1 h
    pppNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,25) = 3.9110.059η2 = 0.1350.477
    qqqNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(21.868) = 0.1190.907d = 0.0460.052
    Novel object: 24 h
    rrrNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,25) = 0.1820.674η2 = 0.0060.069
    sssNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(21.258) = –1.7530.094d = 0.6770.416
    Open field center time
    tttNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0610.806η2 = 0.0020.057
    uuuNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(35.933) = –2.9160.006d = 0.9440.807
    Open field grid crosses
    vvvNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.2550.617η2 = 0.0030.078
    wwwNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(25.858) = –7.427<0.001d = 2.4841
    Elevated plus maze % open time
    xxxNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 1.6120.213η2 = 0.0230.235
    yyyNormal distributionWelch’s t-testVEH vs. LCt(31.406) = –5.85<0.001d = 1.9290.999
    PO time behind barrier
    zzzNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.03640.85η2 = 0.0010.054
    aaaaNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 10.2080.003η2 = 0.1580.875
    bbbbNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: test phaseF(1,36) = 6.1740.018η2 = 0.040.677
    ccccNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × test phaseF(1,36) = 1.7010.201η2 = 0.0390.246
    PO freezing duration
    ddddNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0020.967η2 < 0.0000.05
    eeeeNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 3.6160.065η2 = 0.0910.457
    ffffNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: test phaseF(1,36) = 0.5890.448η2 = 0.0160.116
    ggggNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × test phaseF(1,36) = 0.9550.335η2 = 0.0250.158
    PO stretch attend duration
    hhhhNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.00020.99η2 < 0.0000.05
    iiiiNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 9.2230.004η2 = 0.2040.999
    jjjjNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: test phaseF(1,36) = 27.268<0.001η2 = 0.3890.999
    kkkkNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × test phaseF(1,36) = 6.8050.013η2 = 0.0970.719
    llllNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: VEH baseline vs. odort(19) = –4.95<0.001; α = 0.0125d = 1.4590.994
    mmmmNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: LC baselline vs. odort(17) = –2.2490.038; α = 0.025d = 0.7110.544
    nnnnNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: baseline VEH vs. LCt(29.935) = 1.3130.199; α = 0.05d = 0.4140.237
    ooooNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: odor VEH vs. LCt(34.037) = 3.0260.005; α = 0.01667d = 0.9650.824
    PO stretch locomotion duration
    ppppNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0320.86η2 = 0.0010.053
    qqqqNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 11.9850.001η2 = 0.250.92
    rrrrNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: test phaseF(1,36) = 8.6050.006η2 = 0.1460.814
    ssssNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × test phaseF(1,36) = 14.325<0.001η2 = 0.2430.957
    ttttNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: VEH baseline vs. odort(19) = 0.8460.408; α = 0.05d = 0.2090.099
    uuuuNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: LC baselline vs. odort(17) = –3.7550.002; α = 0.01667d = 0.7390.577
    vvvvNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: baseline VEH vs. LCt(27.927) = –1.5210.14; α = 0.025d = 0.5060.329
    wwwwNormal distributionWelch’s t-testPost hoc: odor VEH vs. LCt(20.041) = –4.225<0.001; α = 0.0125d = 1.4350.99
    PO stimulus cloth approaches
    xxxxNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0320.86η2 = 0.0010.053
    yyyyNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 8.3120.007η2 = 0.1130.801
    zzzzNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: test phaseF(1,36) = 19.22<0.001η2 = 0.1350.989
    aaaaaNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × test phaseF(1,36) = 1.1160.298η2 = 0.020.177
    PO stimulus cloth interaction duration
    bbbbbNormal distribution3-way ANOVAMain effect: sexF(1,34) = 0.0670.798η2 = 0.0010.057
    cccccNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: treatmentF(1,36) = 26.650<0.001η2 = 0.340.999
    dddddNormal distribution2-way ANOVAMain effect: test phaseF(1,36) = 0.5210.475η2 = 0.0140.108
    eeeeeNormal distribution2-way ANOVAInteraction: treatment × test phaseF(1,36) = 0.420.521η2 = 0.0110.097
    Male sex behavior
    fffffNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testMount number: VEH vs. LCW = 630.007HL = 18.8895.999 to 35.999
    gggggNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testMount latency: VEH vs. LCW = 8.50.011HL = -711.738-1180 to -25.999
    hhhhhNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testIntromission number: VEH vs. LCW = 57.50.028HL = 9.04.33e-05 to 13.999
    iiiiiNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testIntromission latency: VEH vs. LCW = 8.50.009HL = -862.834-1167 to -121
    jjjjjNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testEjaculation number: VEH vs. LCW = 48.50.134HL < 0.000-6.933e-06 to 1
    kkkkkNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testEjaculation latency: VEH vs. LCW = 200.098HL = -131.621-663 to 5.161e-05
    lllllNormal distributionWelch’s t-testHops and darts: VEH vs. LCt(16.893) = 0.5320.602d = 0.2440.079
    mmmmmNormal distributionWelch’s t-testSolicitations: VEH vs. LCt(16.501) = 1.3070.209d = 0.6020.236
    nnnnnNon-normalWilcoxon rank sum testLordosis quotient: VEH vs. LCW = 451HL < 0.000-5.437e-06 to 2.74e-06
    oooooNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 1: male vs. femalet(26.023) = –0.50.621d = 0.1870.077
    pppppNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 2: male vs. femalet(18.074) = –0.6910.499d = 0.2630.105
    qqqqqNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 3: male vs. femalet(20.761) = 0.7040.49d = 0.2560.102
    rrrrrNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 4: male vs. femalet(26.982) = –0.5720.572d = 0.2120.085
    sssssNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 1: VEH vs. LCt(26.941) = –3.2670.003d = 1.1870.865
    tttttNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 2: VEH vs. LCt(25.663) = –4.063<0.001d = 1.4490.962
    uuuuuNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 3: VEH vs. LCt(25.689) = 1.5590.131d = 0.5560.301
    vvvvvNormal distributionWelch’s t-testFactor 4: VEH vs. LCt(21.724) = 1.4150.171d = 0.5450.291
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 3 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 3, Issue 6
November/December 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Temporary Depletion of Microglia during the Early Postnatal Period Induces Lasting Sex-Dependent and Sex-Independent Effects on Behavior in Rats
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Temporary Depletion of Microglia during the Early Postnatal Period Induces Lasting Sex-Dependent and Sex-Independent Effects on Behavior in Rats
Jonathan W. VanRyzin, Stacey J. Yu, Miguel Perez-Pouchoulen, Margaret M. McCarthy
eNeuro 29 November 2016, 3 (6) ENEURO.0297-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0297-16.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Temporary Depletion of Microglia during the Early Postnatal Period Induces Lasting Sex-Dependent and Sex-Independent Effects on Behavior in Rats
Jonathan W. VanRyzin, Stacey J. Yu, Miguel Perez-Pouchoulen, Margaret M. McCarthy
eNeuro 29 November 2016, 3 (6) ENEURO.0297-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0297-16.2016
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • behavior
  • liposomal clodronate
  • microglia
  • postnatal development

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more New Research

Development

  • Deletion of endocannabinoid synthesizing enzyme DAGLα in Pcp2-positive cerebellar Purkinje cells decreases depolarization-induced short-term synaptic plasticity, reduces social preference, and heightens anxiety
  • Early Development of Hypothalamic Neurons Expressing Proopiomelanocortin Peptides, Neuropeptide Y and Kisspeptin in Fetal Rhesus Macaques
  • Lactate Receptor HCAR1 Affects Axonal Development and Contributes to Lactate’s Protection of Axons and Myelin in Experimental Neonatal Hypoglycemia
Show more Development

Subjects

  • Development
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.