Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Odor-evoked calcium responses in the MC layer. A, Odorized food exposure lasted through the entirety of gestation and the postnatal period until imaging. Virus injection into the dorsal OB was done at P12-P30. Imaging was performed two to three weeks after virus injection. B, The dorsal OB was imaged during stimulus presentation using a custom-built 2-channel olfactometer with airflow provided by an aquarium pump. C, The MC layer was imaged with manual ROI selection. Four cells are labeled, with corresponding odor-evoked responses shown in D. White scale bar: 25 µm. Black bar indicates 1-s odor stimulus.
- Figure 2.
Response characteristics. A, Integrated ΔF/F and baseline fluorescence are not correlated. B, Peak ΔF/F and baseline fluorescence are not correlated. C, Peak and integrated ΔF/F are strongly correlated. D, Kernel density estimation (KDE) describing response distribution across all cells and odorants in control, hexanal-exposed, and mint-exposed mice (statistically significant distributions between groups). E, KDE describing response distribution across cells in control, hexanal-exposed, and mint-exposed male mice. F, KDE describing response distribution across cells in control, hexanal-exposed, and mint-exposed female mice. Gray asterisk, statistically significant difference between mint and control groups; blue asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and control; red asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and mint.
- Figure 3.
Odor exposure increases median Peak ΔF/F of MC response to odorants at 1% concentration by volume. A, Boxplot describing distribution of peak odor-evoked ΔF/F of MC response to odorants at 1% concentration by volume. B, Median peak ΔF/F across all odorants at 1% concentration by volume. Gray asterisk, statistically significant difference between mint and control groups; blue asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and control; red asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and mint.
- Figure 4.
Odor exposure increases median Peak ΔF/F of MC response to odorants across concentrations. Mint-exposed and hexanal-exposed MCs have higher medians of peak ΔF/F across all concentrations of MS (A), IAA (B), and hexanal (C). There were no significant differences in response distribution between concentrations for any exposure group.
- Figure 5.
Odor exposure increases number of excitatory MC responses. A--D, Ratio of above-threshold excitatory responses to all odor presentation trials across odorants. Odor-exposure groups had significantly higher ratio of excitatory responses as compared to control groups for odors at 1% concentration (A) and multiple concentrations (B--D). E, MCs in all groups responded to a high number of odorants (median number of odorants: control, 13; mint exposed, 14; hexanal exposed, 14). Gray asterisk, statistically significant difference between mint and control groups; blue asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and control groups.
- Figure 6.
Odor exposure increases the rate of successful responses to odorant presentation. A--D, Ratio of successful trials above threshold (3 SD above baseline) to total trials of odorant presentation increases in odor-exposed groups across specific odorants at 1% concentration (A) and multiple concentrations of MS (B) and IAA (C), but not hexanal (D). E, Summed across all trials, odor-exposed groups had higher overall ratio of successful trials. Gray asterisk, statistically significant difference between mint and control groups; blue asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and control; red asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and mint.
- Figure 7.
Odor ranking changes for specific odorants following odor exposure. A, Response rank for each odor calculated on a cell-by-cell basis. Odorants at 1% concentration displayed. B--D, Response rank for multiple concentrations of MS (B), IAA (C), and hexanal (D). E, Table of significant differences in odorant ranks for each group comparison. Gray asterisk, statistically significant difference between mint and control groups; blue asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and control; red asterisk, statistically significant difference between hexanal and mint.
- Figure 8.
MCs display acute habituation following repeated short odor pulses. A, Odor stimulus (hexanal at 1% concentration) was presented for 50 s followed by 5 min of room air, with stimulus repeated four times. MC odor-evoked response was captured before stimulus presentation, 5 min after final 50-s odor stimulus, and 30 min after final 50-s odor stimulus. B, Normalized change in odor response between prestimulus and 5-min or 30-min poststimulus. Significant decrease in odor response was observed at both time points poststimulus; * indicates statistically significant comparison.
Tables
Comparison Test p value Significant Median control (C) Median mint (M) Median hexanal (H) Peak ΔF/F amplitude C; N = 225 M; N = 268 H; N = 369 IAA 10%
all groupsKruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.216 0.3547 0.3697 IAA 10%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.216 0.3547 IAA 10%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.216 0.3697 IAA 10%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0967 No 0.3547 0.3697 IAA 1%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.2018 0.2389 0.3306 IAA 1%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0745 No 0.2018 0.2389 IAA 1%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2018 0.3306 IAA 1%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 0.2389 0.3306 AP all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.1081 0.1837 0.2822 AP; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1081 0.1837 AP; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1081 0.2822 AP; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1837 0.2822 MS 10%
all groupsKruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.1026 0.1961 0.2566 MS 10%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1026 0.1961 MS 10%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1026 0.2566 MS 10%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0143 Yes 0.1961 0.2566 IAA 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.1404 0.2386 0.2973 IAA 5%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1404 0.2386 IAA 5%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1404 0.2973 IAA 5%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0023 Yes 0.2386 0.2973 Hexanal 1%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.2409 0.3421 0.4718 Hexanal 1%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2409 0.3421 Hexanal 1%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2409 0.4718 Hexanal 1%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 0.3421 0.4718 EB all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.2262 0.3254 0.3204 EB; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2262 0.3254 EB; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2262 0.3204 EB; H vs M Dunn's 0.6847 No 0.3254 0.3204 MS 1%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.1167 0.1641 0.1933 MS 1%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0028 Yes 0.1167 0.1641 MS 1%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1167 0.1933 MS 1%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0026 Yes 0.1641 0.1933 PA all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.0733 0.2004 0.2511 PA; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.0733 0.2004 PA; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.0733 0.2511 PA; H vs M Dunn's 0.0244 Yes 0.2004 0.2511 MS 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.0777 0.1796 0.2503 MS 5%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.0777 0.1796 MS 5%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.0777 0.2503 MS 5%; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1796 0.2503 Hexanone; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.3185 0.4161 0.421 Hexanone; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.3185 0.4161 Hexanone; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.3185 0.421 Hexanone; H vs M Dunn's 0.8052 No 0.4161 0.421 Hexanal 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.2438 0.3768 0.3778 Hexanal 10%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2438 0.3768 Hexanal 10%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2438 0.3778 Hexanal 10%; H vs M Dunn's 0.9975 No 0.3768 0.3778 THA all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.1171 0.2183 0.2415 THA; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1171 0.2183 THA; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.1171 0.2415 ThA; H vs M Dunn's 0.2795 No 0.2183 0.2415 Hexanal 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.2758 0.3534 0.5212 Hexanal 5%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 0.2758 0.3534 Hexanal 5%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.2758 0.5212 Hexanal 5%; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.3534 0.5212 Statistical test results of excitatory response amplitudes of cells from control, mint-, and hexanal-exposed groups in response to odorants at 1% concentration. Data shown in Figure 3.
Comparison Test p value Significant Median control (C) Median mint (M) Median hexanal (H) Peak ΔF/F amplitude C; N = 225 M; N = 268 H; N = 369 Control group MS all conc. Kruskal--Wallis 0.0586 No 0.1167 0.0777 0.1026 MS; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.0508 Yes 0.1167 0.0777 MS; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.4478 No 0.1167 0.1026 MS; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.4695 No 0.0777 0.1026 IAA all conc. Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.2018 0.1404 0.216 IAA; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.0028 Yes 0.2018 0.1404 IAA; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.768 No 0.2018 0.216 IAA; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 0.1404 0.216 Hexanal; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis 0.0214 Yes 0.2409 0.2758 0.2438 Hexanal; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.1657 No 0.2409 0.2758 Hexanal; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.8025 No 0.2409 0.2438 Hexanal; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.0206 Yes 0.2758 0.2438 Mint group MS; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis 0.206 No 0.1642 0.1796 0.1961 MS; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.0194 Yes 0.1642 0.1796 MS; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.1692 No 0.1642 0.1961 MS; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.7856 No 0.1796 0.1961 IAA; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis <0.000A1 Yes 0.2389 0.2386 0.3547 IAA; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.9991 No 0.2389 0.2386 IAA; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 0.2389 0.3547 IAA; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 0.2386 0.3547 Hexanal; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis 0.3426 No 0.3421 0.3534 0.3768 Hexanal; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.7615 No 0.3421 0.3534 Hexanal; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.3775 No 0.3421 0.3768 Hexanal; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.9178 No 0.3534 0.3768 Hexanal group MS; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis 0.0184 Yes 0.1933 0.2503 0.2566 MS; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.0146 Yes 0.1933 0.2503 MS; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.2718 No 0.1933 0.2566 MS; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.5645 No 0.2503 0.2566 IAA; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis 0.0433 Yes 0.3306 0.2973 0.3697 IAA; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.8326 No 0.3306 0.2973 IAA; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.2488 No 0.3306 0.3697 IAA; 5% vs 10% Dunn's 0.0425 Yes 0.2973 0.3697 Hexanal; all conc. Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 0.4718 0.5212 0.3778 Hexanal; 1% vs 5% Dunn's 0.3105 No 0.4718 0.5212 Hexanal; 1% vs 10% Dunn's 0.0137 Yes 0.4718 0.3778 Hexanal; 5% vs 10% Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 0.5212 0.3778 Statistical test results of excitatory response amplitudes of cells from control, mint-, and hexanal-exposed groups in response to odorants at 1%, 5%, and 10% concentration. Data shown in Figure 4.
Comparison Test p value Significant Median control (C) Median mint (M) Median hexanal (H) Ratio of excitatory responses C; N = 14 M; N = 14 H; N = 14 All odors ANOVA p < 0.0001 Yes 0.88 0.9235 0.9377 All odors; C vs M Tukey's p < 0.0001 Yes 0.88 0.9235 All odors; C vs H Tukey's p < 0.0001 Yes 0.88 0.9377 All odors; H vs M Tukey's p = 0.1313 No 0.9235 0.9377 Ratio of activating
odorantsC; N = 225 M; N = 268 H; N = 369 All groups Kruskal--Wallis p < 0.0001 Yes 13 14 14 C vs M Tukey's p < 0.0001 Yes 13 14 C vs H Tukey's p < 0.0001 Yes 13 14 H vs M Tukey's p>0.9999 No 14 14 Comparisons of proportion of excitatory odor-evoked responses from control, mint-, and hexanal-exposed groups. Data shown in Figure 5.
Comparison Test p value Median control (C) Median mint (M) Median hexanal (H) Ratio of successful trials C; N = 225 M; N = 268 H; N = 369 All odors combined; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 1 1 1 All odors combined; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 1 1 All odors combined; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 1 1 All odors combined; H vs M Dunn's 0.0836 1 1 AP all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 0.75 1 1 AP; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 AP; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 AP; H vs M Dunn's 0.0029 1 1 EB all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0181 1 1 1 EB; C vs M Dunn's 0.0151 1 1 EB; C vs H Dunn's 0.5476 1 1 EB; H vs M Dunn's 0.2351 1 1 Hexanal 1%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0596 1 1 1 Hexanal 1%; C vs M Dunn's 0.7821 1 1 Hexanal 1%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0562 1 1 Hexanal 1%; H vs M Dunn's 0.6464 1 1 Hexanone; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.1165 1 1 1 Hexanone; C vs M Dunn's 0.1277 1 1 Hexanone; C vs H Dunn's 0.3668 1 1 Hexanone; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 1 1 IAA 1% all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0902 1 1 1 IAA 1%; C vs M Dunn's 0.4431 1 1 IAA 1%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0867 1 1 IAA 1%; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 1 1 MS 1%
all groupsKruskal--Wallis 0.0139 0.75 1 1 MS 1%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0621 0.75 1 MS 1%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0144 0.75 1 MS 1%; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 1 1 PA all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 0.75 1 1 PA; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 PA; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 PA; H vs M Dunn's 0.0019 1 1 THA all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 0.75 1 1 THA; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 THA; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 THA; H vs M Dunn's 0.9588 1 1 MS 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 0.75 1 1 MS 5%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 MS 5%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 MS 5%; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 1 1 MS 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 0.75 1 1 MS 10%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 MS 10%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 0.75 1 MS 10%; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 1 1 Hexanal 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0016 1 1 1 Hexanal 5%; C vs M Dunn's 0.4815 1 1 Hexanal 5%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0014 1 1 Hexanal 5%; H vs M Dunn's 0.1031 1 1 Hexanal 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0001 1 1 1 Hexanal 10%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0001 1 1 Hexanal 10%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0029 1 1 Hexanal 10%; H vs M Dunn's 0.81 1 1 IAA 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 1 1 1 IAA 5%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0026 1 1 IAA 5%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 1 1 IAA 5%; H vs M Dunn's 0.4956 1 1 IAA 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0007 1 1 1 IAA 10%; C vs M Dunn's 0.0007 1 1 IAA 10%; C vs H Dunn's 0.01 1 1 IAA 10%; H vs M Dunn's 0.8374 1 1 Comparisons of excitatory response reliability from control, mint-, and hexanal-exposed groups. Data shown in Figure 6.
Comparison Test p value Significant Median control (C) Median mint (M) Median hexanal (H) Response rank C; N = 225 M; N = 268 H; N = 369 AP all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 5 4 6 AP; C vs M Dunn's 0.417 No 5 4 AP; C vs H Dunn's 0.0002 Yes 5 6 AP; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 4 6 EB all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0176 Yes 10 10 11 EB; C vs M Dunn's 0.2086 No 10 10 EB; C vs H Dunn's 0.0138 Yes 10 11 EB; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 10 11 Hexanal 1%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 10 10 12 Hexanal 1%; C vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 10 10 Hexanal 1%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 10 12 Hexanal 1%; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 10 12 Hexanone; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 13 11 11 Hexanone; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 13 11 Hexanone; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 13 11 Hexanone; H vs M Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 11 11 IAA 1% all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 9 6 7 IAA 1%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 9 6 IAA 1%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0004 Yes 9 7 IAA 1%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0065 Yes 6 7 MS 1% all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 5 3 3 MS 1%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 5 3 MS 1%; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 5 3 MS 1%; H vs M Dunn's 0.0391 Yes 3 3 PA all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 4 5 7 PA; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 4 5 PA; C vs H Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 4 7 PA; H vs M Dunn's 0.0908 No 5 7 THA all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0028 Yes 5 5 4 THA; C vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 5 5 THA; C vs H Dunn's 0.0234 Yes 5 4 THA; H vs M Dunn's 0.0071 Yes 5 4 MS 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 4 6 5 MS 5%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 4 6 MS 5%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0001 Yes 4 5 MS 5%; H vs M Dunn's 0.4328 No 6 5 MS 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.0731 No 5 5 4 MS 10%; C vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 5 5 MS 10%; C vs H Dunn's 0.1503 No 5 4 MS 10%; H vs M Dunn's 0.1864 No 5 4 IAA 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.1561 No 7 7 6 IAA 5%; C vs M Dunn's 0.3965 No 7 7 IAA 5%; C vs H Dunn's 0.1912 No 7 6 IAA 5%; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 7 6 IAA 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis 0.3245 No 10 9 9 IAA 10%; C vs M Dunn's 0.6739 No 10 9 IAA 10%; C vs H Dunn's 0.4643 No 10 9 IAA 10%; H vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 9 9 Hexanal 5%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 12 12 12 Hexanal 5%; C vs M Dunn's >0.9999 No 12 12 Hexanal 5%; C vs H Dunn's 0.0012 Yes 12 12 Hexanal 5%; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 12 12 Hexanal 10%; all groups Kruskal--Wallis <0.0001 Yes 9 12 9 Hexanal 10%; C vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 9 12 Hexanal 10%; C vs H Dunn's 0.7317 No 9 9 Hexanal 10%; H vs M Dunn's <0.0001 Yes 12 9 Statistical test results of odor ranks between control, mint-, and hexanal-exposed groups. Data shown in Figure 7.
Statistical values Data structure Type of test Power For all multiple comparisons tests, reported p is adjusted p value Figure 2 Distribution of responses; all groups; p = 6.65E-199 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis KW statistic: 912.64 Distribution of responses; C vs M; p approximates 0 Non-normal Tukey's 95% CI: -1.8211 to -1.4263 Distribution of responses; C vs H; p approximates 0 Non-normal Tukey's 95% CI: -2.5607 to -2.1911 Distribution of responses; H vs M; p approximates 0 Non-normal Tukey's 95% CI: -0.9273 to -0.577 Figure 3 Excitation amplitude; IAA 10%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; IAA 10%; C (med: 0.216) vs M (0.3547); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 10%; C vs H (med: 0.3697); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 10%; H vs M; p = 0.0842 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 1%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; IAA 1%; C (med: 0.2018) vs M (0.2389); p = 0.0656 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 1%; C vs H (0.3306); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 1%; H vs M; p = 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; AP; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; AP; C (med: 0.1081) vs M (0.1837); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; AP; C vs H (med: 0.2822); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; AP; H vs M; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 10%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; MS 10%; C (med: 0.1026) vs M (0.1961); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 10%; C vs H (med: 0.2566); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 10%; H vs M; p = 0.0022 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; IAA 5%; C (med: 0.1404) vs M (0.2386); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 5%; C vs H (med: 0.2973); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA 5%; H vs M; p = 0.0022 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 1%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 1%; C (med: 0.2409) vs M (0.3421); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 1%; C vs H (med: 0.4718); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 1%; H vs M; p = 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; EB; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; EB; C (med: 0.2262) vs M (0.3254); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; EB; C vs H (0.3204); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; EB; H vs M; p = 0.5796 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 1%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; MS 1%; C (med: 0.1167) vs M (0.1641); p = 0.0027 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 1%; C vs H (med: 0.1933); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 1%; H vs M; p = 0.0224 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; PA; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; PA; C (med: 0.0733) vs M (0.2004); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; PA; C vs H (med: 0.2511); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; PA; H vs M; p = 0.0224 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; MS 5%; C (med: 0.0777) vs M (0.1796); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 5%; C vs H (med: 0.2503); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS 5%; H vs M; p = 0.6994 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanone; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; Hexanone; C (med: 0.3185) vs M (0.4161); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanone; C vs H (med: 0.421); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanone; H vs M; p = 0.6994 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 10%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 10%; C (med: 0.2438) vs M (0.3768); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 10%; C vs H (med: 0.3778); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 10%; H vs M; p = 0.9842 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; THA; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; THA; C (med: 0.1171) vs M (0.2183); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; THA; C vs H (med: 0.2415); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; THA; H vs M; p = 0.2338 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 5%; C (med: 0.2758) vs M (0.3534); p = 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 5%; C vs H (med: 0.5212); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; Hexanal 5%; H vs M; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Figure 4, concentration comparisons Non-normal Control group Non-normal Excitation amplitude; MS; all conc.; p = 0.0586 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; MS; 1% (med: 0.1167) vs 5% (0.0777); p = 0.0454 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.1026); p = 0.4478 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.4695 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; all conc.; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; IAA; 1% (med: 0.2018) vs 5% (0.1404); p = 0.0027 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.216); p = 0.6607 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; all conc.; p = 0.0214 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 1% (med: 0.2409) vs 5% (0.2758); p = 0.1412 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.2438); p = 0.6965 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.0189 Non-normal Tukey's Mint group Excitation amplitude; MS; all conc.; p = 0.206 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; MS; 1% (med: 0.1641) vs 5% (0.1796); p = 0.0179 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.1961); p = 0.1441 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.6787 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; all conc.; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; IAA; 1% (med: 0.2389) vs 5% (0.2386); p = 0.9919 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.3547); p = 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; all conc.; p = 0.3426 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 1% (med: 0.3421) vs 5% (0.3534); p = 0.6541 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.3768); p = 0.3137 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.8335 Non-normal Tukey's Hexanal group Excitation amplitude; MS; all conc.; p = 0.0184 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; MS; 1% (med: 0.1933) vs 5% (0.2503); p = 0.0136 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS; 1% vs 10% (med: 0.2566); p = 0.2275 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; MS; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.4712 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; all conc.; p = 0.0433 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; IAA; 1% (med: 0.3306) vs 5% (0.2973); p = 0.7292 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; 1% vs 10% (0.3697); p = 0.2089 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; IAA; 5% vs 10%; p = 0.0382 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; all conc.; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 1% (0.4718) vs 5% (0.5212); p = 0.2589 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 1% vs 10% (0.3778); p = 0.0127 Non-normal Tukey's Excitation amplitude; hexanal; 5% vs 10%; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Figure 5 Ratio of excitatory events; all odors; p < 0.0001 Normal ANOVA Ratio of excitatory events; all odors: C (med: 0.88) vs M (0.9235); p < 0.0001 Normal Tukey's Ratio of excitatory events; all odors: C vs H (med: 0.9377); p < 0.0001 Normal Tukey's Ratio of excitatory events; all odors: H vs M; p = 0.1313 Normal Tukey's Ratio of activating odors; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Ratio of activating odors; C (med: 13) vs, M (14); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Ratio of activating odors; C vs H (med: 14); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Ratio of activating odors; H vs M; p>0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Figure 6 Successes; AP; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; AP; C (med: 0.75) vs M (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; AP; C vs H (med: 1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; AP; H vs M; p = 0.0029 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; EB; all groups; p = 0.0181 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; EB; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.0151 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; EB; C vs H (1); p = 0.5476 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; EB; H vs M; p = 0.2351 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 1%; all groups; p = 0.0596 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; Hexanal 1%; C (med: 1) vs M (med: 1); p = 0.7821 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 1%; C vs H (med: 1); p = 0.0562 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 1%; H vs M; p = 0.6464 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanone; all groups; p = 0.1165 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; Hexanone; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.1277 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanone; C vs H (1); p = 0.3668 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanone; H vs M; p>0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 1%; all groups; p = 0.0902 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; IAA 1%; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.4431 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 1%; C vs H (1); p = 0.0867 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 1%; H vs M; p > 0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 1%; all groups; p = 0.0139 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; MS 1%; C (med: 0.75) vs M (1); p = 0.0621 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 1%; C vs H (1); p = 0.0144 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 1%; H vs M; p > 0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; PA; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; PA; C (med: 0.75) vs M (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; PA; C vs H (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; PA; H vs M; p = 0.0019 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; THA; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; THA; C (med: 0.75); vs M (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; THA; C vs H (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; THA; H vs M; p = 0.9588 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; MS 5%; C (med: 0.75) vs M (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 5%; C vs H (med: 1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 5%; H vs M; p > 0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 10%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; MS 10%; C (med: 0.75) vs M (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 10%; C vs H (med: 1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; MS 10%; H vs M; p > 0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 5%; all groups; p = 0.0016 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; Hexanal 5%; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.4815 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 5%; C vs H (med: 1); p = 0.0014 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 5%; H vs M; p = 0.1031 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 10%; all groups; p = 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; Hexanal 10%; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 10%; C vs H (med: 1); p = 0.0029 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; Hexanal 10%; H vs M; p = 0.81 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; IAA 5%; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.0026 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 5%; C vs H (med: 1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 5%; H vs M; p = 0.4956 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 10%; all groups; p = 0.0007 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; IAA 10%; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p = 0.0007 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 10%; C vs H (med: 1); p = 0.01 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; IAA 10%; H vs M; p = 0.8374 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; All odors combined; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Successes; All odors combined; C (med: 1) vs M (1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; All odors combined; C vs H (med: 1); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Successes; All odors combined; H vs M, p = 0.0836 Non-normal Dunn's Figure 7 Comparison of ranks; AP; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; AP; C (med: 5) vs M (4); p = 0.4176 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; AP; C vs H (med: 6); p = 0.0002 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; AP; H vs M; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; EB; all groups; p = 0.0176 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; EB; C (med: 10) vs M (10); p = 0.2086 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; EB; C vs H (med: 11); p = 0.0138 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; EB; H vs M; p>0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 1%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; Hex 1%; C (med: 10) vs M (10); p>0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 1%; C vs H (med: 12); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 1%; H vs M; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hexanone; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; Hexanone; C (med: 13) vs M (11); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hexanone; C vs H (med: 11); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hexanone; H vs M; p = 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 1%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; IAA 1%; C (med: 9) vs M (6); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 1%; C vs H (med: 7); p = 0.0004 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 1%; H vs M; p = 0.0065 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 1%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; MS 1%; C (med: 5) vs M (3); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 1%; C vs H (med: 3); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 1%; H vs M; p = 0.0391 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; PA; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; PA; C (med: 4) vs M (5); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; PA; C vs H (med: 7); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; PA; H vs M; p = 0.0908 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; THA; all groups; p = 0.0028 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; THA; C (med: 5) vs M (5); p>0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; THA; C vs H (med: 4); p = 0.0234 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; THA; H vs M; p = 0.0071 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; MS 5%; C (med: 4) vs M (6); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 5%; C vs H (med: 5); p = 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 5%; H vs M; p = 0.4328 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 10%; all groups; p = 0.0731 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; MS 10%; C (med: 5) vs M (5); p>0.999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 10%; C vs H (4); p = 0.1503 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; MS 10%; H vs M; p = 0.1864 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 5%; all groups; p = 0.1561 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; IAA 5%; C (med: 7) vs M (7); p = 0.3965 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 5%; C vs H (med: 6); p = 0.1912 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 5%; H vs M; p>0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 10%; all groups; p = 0.3245 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; IAA 10%; C (med: 10) vs M (9); p = 0.6739 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 10%; C vs H (med: 9); p = 0.4643 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; IAA 10%; H vs M; p > 0.999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 5%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; Hex 5%; C (med: 12) vs M (12); p > 0.9999 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 5%; C vs H (med: 12); p = 0.0012 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 5%; H vs M; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 10%; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Kruskal--Wallis Comparison of ranks; Hex 10%; C (med: 9) vs M (12); p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 10%; C vs H (9); p = 0.7317 Non-normal Dunn's Comparison of ranks; Hex 10%; H vs M; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Dunn's Figure 8 Habituation; all groups; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Friedman Test Friedman statistic: 46.52 Habituation; Pre vs 5 min Post; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Habituation; Pre vs 30 min Post; p < 0.0001 Non-normal Tukey's Habituation; 5 vs 30 min Post; p > 0.9999 Non-normal Tukey's
In this issue
Prenatal and Early Postnatal Odorant Exposure Heightens Odor-Evoked Mitral Cell Responses in the Mouse Olfactory Bulb
