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, Disorders of the Nervous System

Apparent Genetic Rescue of Adult Shank3 Exon 21 Insertion Mutation Mice Tempered by Appropriate Control Experiments

Haley E. Speed, Mehreen Kouser, Zhong Xuan, Shunan Liu, Anne Duong and Craig M. Powell
eNeuro 26 August 2019, 6 (5) ENEURO.0317-19.2019; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0317-19.2019
Haley E. Speed
1Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mehreen Kouser
1Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zhong Xuan
1Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shunan Liu
1Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne Duong
1Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Craig M. Powell
1Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
2Civitan International Research Center at UAB, Birmingham 35294-2182, AL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Craig M. Powell
  • 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.

    Breeding strategy for generating the Shank3GCreTam mouse line. Heterozygous Shank3+/G mice from the original Shank3G mouse line were crossed with a tamoxifen-inducible CreTam transgenic mouse line to produce Shank3+/GCreTam− and Shank3+/GCreTam+ offspring. Shank3+/GCreTam− and Shank3+/GCreTam+ mice from this initial cross were bred to generate all experimental mice for this study: Shank3+/+CreTam−, Shank3+/GCreTam−, Shank3G/GCreTam−, Shank3+/+CreTam+, Shank3+/GCreTam+, and Shank3G/GCreTam+.

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

    Tamoxifen treatment strategy. Experimental mice of all six genotypes (Shank3+/+CreTam−, Shank3+/GCreTam−, Shank3G/GCreTam−, Shank3+/+CreTam+, Shank3+/GCreTam+, and Shank3G/GCreTam+) were fed vehicle diet until eight weeks of age. At eight weeks, mice were separated into two treatment groups, one receiving vehicle diet for six weeks and another receiving tamoxifen diet for six weeks. Each treatment group consisted of mice from all six genotypes. After the six-week treatment, all mice were fed vehicle diet for at least a two-week wash-out period before testing. During and after testing, all mice were fed vehicle diet.

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

    Tamoxifen-inducible Shank3 genetic reversal strategy. The Shank3G mutation was introduced into the WT Shank3 allele (A) by insertion of a neo-STOP cassette before WT exon 21 (B). The neo-STOP cassette was flanked by loxP sites, so that Cre-recombinase activity in the nucleus could excise the mutated Shank3G exon 21 (C), resulting in restoration of the WT Shank3+/+ gene (D) and SHANK3 expression, thereby effectively reversing the Shank3G mutation.

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

    Optimization of tamoxifen treatment protocol in adult Shank3GCreTam+ mice. A, Quantification of Western blotting showing minimal rescue of WT SHANK3 protein expression following treatment with 4-hydroxytamoxifen (66.67 mg/kg) given once per day subcutaneously for 15 d (n = 7 for all treatment groups). B, Representative Western blotting (top) and quantification of whole-brain lysates (bottom) showing degrees of rescue of SHANK3 protein expression after varying duration of tamoxifen diet (n = 7 for all treatment groups). C, SHANK3 protein levels from whole-brain lysates in adult Shank3GCreTam− mice treated for six weeks with vehicle or tamoxifen diet (vehicle diet: Shank3+/+ n = 9, Shank3+/G n = 7, Shank3G/G n = 4; tamoxifen diet: Shank3+/+ n = 12, Shank3+/G n = 9, Shank3G/G n = 9). D, SHANK3 protein levels from whole-brain lysates in adult Shank3GCreTam+ mice treated for six weeks with vehicle diet or tamoxifen diet [vehicle diet: Shank3+/+ n = 26, Shank3+/G n = 21, Shank3G/G n = 15; tamoxifen diet: Shank3+/+ n = 23, Shank3+/G n = 15, Shank3G/G n = 18; data are normalized to the β-actin control and then to the average of WT levels with C-terminal SHANK3 antibody (JH3025)]. E, Example Southern blotting of brain tissue in CreTam+, WT and Shank3G/G homozygous mutant mice treated with vehicle or tamoxifen (TAM; Rev = band expected following cre-mediated recombination of floxed mutant; Mut = band expected for floxed mutant before cre recombination; WT = band expected in WT mice without mutant allele); *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. Error bars represent S.E.M. in this and all subsequent figures.

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

    Vehicle-treated Shank3G/GCreTam− mice exhibit clear behavioral and physiologic phenotypes. Shank3G/GCreTam− mice exhibit a novelty avoidance phenotype by building smaller nests in both nest width (A) and height (B) over a 90-min period, burying fewer marbles over a 30-min period (C), and exhibiting hypoactivity within the first 5 min of the open field test (D) compared to Shank3+/+CreTam− controls. E, Rotarod testing demonstrates that motor learning and coordination are decreased in Shank3G/GCreTam− mice compared to controls. Shank3+/+ n = 27, Shank3+/G n = 18, Shank3G/G n = 19. F, Synaptic transmission in the hippocampus is impaired in Shank3G/GCreTam− mice with decreased fEPSP in response to stimulus intensity compared to Shank3+/+CreTam− mice. Inset, Average of five consecutive raw traces at stimulus intensities 0–350 μA in 50-μA steps from Shank3+/+ (top) and Shank3G/G (bottom) mice; scale bar = 0.5 mV, 5 ms. Shank3+/+ n = 10 slices from five mice, Shank3G/G n = 9 slices from three mice; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.

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

    Behavioral and synaptic phenotypes in Shank3G/GCreTam− mice are not rescued by treatment with six weeks of tamoxifen diet. Nesting behavior is not rescued by tamoxifen treatment in Shank3G/GCreTam− mice with regard to nest width (A), although there is no main effect of genotype with regard to nest height (B). Marble burying (C) remains impaired in tamoxifen-treated Shank3G/GCreTam− mice with decreased number of marbles buried compared to controls. Locomotor activity also remains decreased in tamoxifen-treated Shank3G/GCreTam− mice at the start of the open field test (D). Latency to fall off the rotarod (E) remains decreased in tamoxifen-treated Shank3G/GCreTam− mice compared to controls. Shank3+/+ n = 25, Shank3+/G n = 19, Shank3G/G n = 16. F, Tamoxifen treatment does not rescue synaptic transmission in Shank3G/GCreTam− mice. Inset, Average of five consecutive traces at each stimulus intensity 0–350 μA in 50-μA steps from Shank3+/+ (top) and Shank3G/G (bottom) mice treated with six weeks of tamoxifen diet; scale bar = 0.25 mV, 5 ms. Shank3+/+ n = 22 slices from eight mice, Shank3G/G n = 20 slices from six mice; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.

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

    Incomplete genetic rescue of behavioral and physiologic phenotypes in tamoxifen-treated Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice. There is no main effect of genotype on nest width (A) or height (B) in tamoxifen-treated Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice, suggesting successful rescue of the Shank3G/G nest-building phenotype. C, The Shank3G/G marble-burying phenotype is not rescued in tamoxifen-treated Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice, nor is the initial hypoactivity observed in the open field test (D). Tamoxifen treatment of Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice does successfully eliminate the main effects of genotype in the time to fall from the rotarod. Shank3+/+ n = 23, Shank3+/G n = 15, Shank3G/G n = 18 (E). F, There is no main effect of genotype on fEPSP slope over a range of stimulus intensities in tamoxifen-treated Shank3+/+CreTam+ and Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice. Inset, Average of five consecutive traces at each stimulus intensity 0–350 μA in 50-μA steps from Shank3+/+ (top) and Shank3G/G (bottom) mice treated with six weeks of tamoxifen diet; scale bar = 0.25 mV, 5 ms. Shank3+/+ n = 16 slices from eight mice, Shank3G/G n = 12 slices from six mice; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.0001, ****p < 0.00001.

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

    Unexpected, partial genetic “rescue” of behavioral and synaptic phenotypes in vehicle-treated Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice. The decreases in nest width (A) and height (B) in Shank3G/G mice are rescued in vehicle-treated Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice. The Shank3G/G marble-burying phenotype (C) and initial locomotor hypoactivity in the open field test (D) are not rescued in vehicle-treated Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice. E, There is no main effect of genotype in time to fall from the rotarod in vehicle-treated Shank3GCreTam+ mice. Shank3+/+ n = 26, Shank3+/G n = 21, Shank3G/G n = 15. F, There is no main effect of genotype on fEPSP slope in response to a range of stimulus intensities. Inset, Average of five consecutive traces at each stimulus intensity 0–350 μA in 50-μA steps from Shank3+/+ (top) and Shank3G/G (bottom) mice treated with vehicle diet; scale bar = 0.25 mV, 5 ms. Shank3+/+ n = 16 slices from six mice, Shank3G/G n = 16 slices from five mice; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.0001, ****p < 0.00001.

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

    Effect of the CreTam transgene on synaptic physiology in WT Shank3+/+ and mutant Shank3G/G mice. The CreTam transgene causes a dramatic decrease in the relationship between stimulus intensity and fEPSP slope (A) in WT Shank3+/+ mice. Inset, Average of five consecutive raw traces at each stimulus intensity from 0 to 350 μA in 50-μA steps from Shank3+/+CreTam− mice (top) and Shank3+/+CreTam+ mice (bottom); scale bar = 0.25 mV, 5 ms. Shank3+/+CreTam− n = 10 slices from four mice, Shank3+/+CreTam+ n = 16 slices from six mice. B, The relationship between stimulus intensity and fEPSP slope in mutant Shank3G/G mice is unchanged with CreTam transgene expression. Inset, Average of five consecutive raw traces at each stimulus intensity from 0 to 350 μA in 50-μA steps from Shank3G/GCreTam− mice (top) and Shank3G/GCreTam+ mice (bottom); scale bar =0.25 mV, 5 ms. Shank3G/GCreTam− n = 9 slices from three mice, Shank3G/GCreTam+ n = 16 slices from five mice; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Detailed statistical analysis of tamoxifen treatment on WT SHANK3 protein expression

    Biochemistry
    15-dTAM s.c. vsVeh s.c. (Cre+)Two-way ANOVAGenotypeTreatmentInteractionF(2,36) = 20.97F(1,36) = 1.61F(2,36) = 0.49*p < 0.0001p = 0.2133p = 0.6194
    (Fig. 4A)Tukey HSDVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/G Veh Shank3G/G Veh Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/+ Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3G/G p = 0.0705*p = 0.0003p = 0.2997p = 1.0000p = 0.6835*p = 0.0024p = 0.6835*p = 0.0241p = 0.0998
    One-weekTAM diet vs Veh diet (Cre+)Two-way ANOVAGenotypeTreatmentInteractionF(2,36) = 25.49F(1,36) = 1.78F(2,36) = 0.45*p < 0.0001p = 0.1906p = 0.6425
    (Fig. 4B)Tukey HSDVeh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/G Veh Shank3G/G Veh Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/+ Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3G/G *p = 0.0447*p = 0.0002p = 0.1242p = 1.0000p = 0.3864*p = 0.0012p = 0.3864*p = 0.0012p = 0.1548
    Two-weekTAM diet vs Veh diet (Cre+)Two-way ANOVAGenotypeTreatmentInteractionF(2,36) = 18.64F(1,36) = 4.92F(2,36) = 1.49*p < 0.0001*p = 0.0329p = 0.2389
    (Fig. 4B)Tukey HSDVeh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/G Veh Shank3G/G Veh Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/+ Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3G/G p = 0.0523*p = 0.0002p = 0.1395p = 1.0000p = 0.6185*p = 0.0404p = 0.6185*p = 0.0404p = 0.6526
    Four-weekTAM diet vs Veh diet (Cre+)Two-way ANOVAGenotypeTreatmentInteractionF(2,36) = 13.70F(1,36) = 5.73F(2,36) = 1.55*p < 0.0001*p = 0.0220p = 0.2262
    (Fig. 4B)Tukey HSDVeh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/G Veh Shank3G/G Veh Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/+ Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3G/G p = 0.1104*p = 0.0004p = 1.0000p = 1.0000p = 0.9380p = 0.1530p = 0.9380p = 0.1530p = 0.6222
    Six-weekTAM diet vsVeh diet (Cre-)Two-way ANOVAGenotypeTreatmentInteractionF(2,44) = 45.29F(1,44) = 0.17F(2,44) = 0.39*p < 0.0001p = 0.6783p = 0.7010
    (Fig. 4C)Tukey HSDVeh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/G Veh Shank3G/G Veh Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/+ Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3G/G *p = 0.0008*p = 0.0001p = 0.2915p = 0.9236*p = 0.0007*p = 0.0001*p = 0.0046*p = 0.0001*p = 0.0255
    Six-weekTAM diet vsVeh diet (Cre+)Two-way ANOVAGenotypeTreatmentInteractionF(2,112) = 7.81F(1,112) = 14.67F(2,112) = 4.87*p < 0.0001*p = 0.0002*p = 0.0094
    (Fig. 4D)Tukey HSDVeh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/+ vs Veh Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsVeh Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/+ vsTam Shank3+/G vsVeh Shank3+/G Veh Shank3G/G Veh Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/+ Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3+/G Tam Shank3G/G Tam Shank3G/G p = 0.1319*p = 0.0005*p = 0.0012p = 1.0000p = 0.7763p = 0.8507p = 0.6913p = 0.9308p = 0.2261
    • ↵* Significant at P < 0.05 level.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Detailed statistical analysis of all behavior and electrophysiology performed in this study

    Vehicle-treated Shank3GCreTam−
    Nest widthThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,58) = 4.07*p = 0.0222
    (Fig. 5A)TimeF(2,116) = 19.12 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,58) = 0.26p = 0.6119
    Genotype × timeF(4,116) = 0.67p = 0.6162
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.5894
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0089
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.1515
    Nest heightThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,58) = 3.38 *p = 0.0408
    (Fig. 5B)TimeF(2,116) = 33.32 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,58) = 0.01p = 0.9336
    Genotype × timeF(4,116) = 0.46p = 0.7621
    Genotype × sexF(2,58) = 1.82p = 0.1710
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.9865
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0392
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0473
    Marble buryingTwo-way ANOVAGenotypeF(2,58) = 12.30 *p < 0.0001
    (Fig. 5C)SexF(1,58) = 0.13p = 0.7208
    Genotype × timeF(4,116) = 0.67p = 0.6162
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.4965
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0001
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0017
    LocomotorThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,58) = 0.47p = 0.6274
    (Fig. 5D)TimeF(23,1334) = 103.60 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,58) = 0.82p = 0.3689
    Genotype × timeF(46,1334) = 3.37 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × sexF(2,58) = 0.37p = 0.6893
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.9828
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.5155
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.6796
    RotarodThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,58) = 5.83 *p = 0.0049
    (Fig. 5E)TrialF(7,406) = 13.89 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,58) = 4.31 *p = 0.0424
    Genotype × trialF(14,406) = 1.87 *p = 0.0282
    Genotype × sexF(2,58) = 0.94p = 0.3970
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.4183
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0015
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.4183
    fEPSP slopeTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,17) = 102.42 *p < 0.0001
    (Fig. 5F)IntensityF(7,119) = 36.51 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,119) = 2.90 *p = 0.0078
    Fiber volleyTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,8) = 5.12p = 0.0535
    IntensityF(7,56) = 69.13 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,56) = 3.51 *p = 0.0034
    Tamoxifen-treated Shank3GCreTam−
    Nest widthThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,54) = 5.09 *p = 0.0047
    (Fig. 6A)TimeF(2,108) = 23.28 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,54) = 0.31p = 0.5813
    Genotype × timeF(4,108) = 1.12p = 0.3527
    Genotype × sexF(2,54) = 0.35p = 0.7070
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.3842
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0068
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.1757
    Nest heightThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,54) = 2.47p = 0.0942
    (Fig. 6B)TimeF(2,108) = 39.18 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,54) = 0.01p = 0.9046
    Genotype × timeF(4,108) = 1.07p = 0.3753
    Genotype × sexF(2,54) = 0.14p = 0.8719
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.4260
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.0811
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.6415
    Marble buryingTwo-way ANOVAGenotypeF(2,54) = 22.52 *p < 0.0001
    (Fig. 6C)SexF(1,54) = 0.86p = 0.3575
    Genotype × sexF(2,54) = 0.20p = 0.8195
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.0776
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0001
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0003
    LocomotorThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,54) = 5.20 *p = 0.0086
    (Fig. 6D)TimeF(23,1242) = 96.67 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,54) = 0.56p = 0.4570
    Genotype × timeF(46,1242) = 4.55 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × sexF(2,54) = 0.11p = 0.8928
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam−p = 0.0740
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0097
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam−p = 0.6566
    RotarodThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,54) = 13.62 *p < 0.0001
    (Fig. 6E)TrialF(7,378) = 16.98 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,54) = 17.21 *p = 0.0001
    Genotype × trialF(14,378) = 2.79 *p = 0.0006
    Genotype × sexF(2,54) = 2.50p = 0.0912
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3+/GCreTam− *p = 0.0253
    Shank3+/+CreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0001
    Shank3+/GCreTam− vsShank3G/GCreTam− *p = 0.0346
    fEPSP slopeTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,40) = 8.33 *p = 0.0063
    (Fig. 6F)IntensityF(7,280) = 113.08 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,280) = 9.94 *p < 0.0001
    Fiber volleyTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,19) = 0.49p = 0.4931
    IntensityF(7,133) = 51.55 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,133) = 0.69p = 0.6768
    Tamoxifen-treated Shank3GCreTam+ mice
    Nest widthThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,50) = 0.30p = 0.7405
    (Fig. 7A)TimeF(2,100) = 28.50 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,50) = 0.62p = 0.4336
    Genotype × timeF(4,100) = 1.12p = 0.3531
    Genotype × sexF(2,50) = 0.22p = 0.8038
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.9947
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.7240
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.8221
    Nest heightThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,50) = 0.07p = 0.9335
    (Fig. 7B)TimeF(2,100) = 35.62 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,50) = 0.58p = 0.4490
    Genotype × timeF(4,100) = 0.48p = 0.7507
    Genotype × sexF(2,50) = 0.17p = 0.8425
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.9623
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9767
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9000
    Marble buryingTwo-way ANOVAGenotypeF(2,48) = 3.68 *p = 0.0326
    (Fig. 7C)SexF(1,48) = 0.00p = 0.9634
    Genotype × sexF(2,48) = 0.26p = 0.7688
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.6972
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+ *p = 0.0296
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.6972
    LocomotorThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,50) = 2.12p = 0.1311
    (Fig. 7D)TimeF(23,1150) = 99.68 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1.50) = 0.49p = 0.4866
    Genotype × timeF(46,1150) = 1.82 *p < 0.0008
    Genotype × sexF(2,50) = 0.03p = 0.9701
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.8310
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.1097
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.4023
    RotarodThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,56) = 0.12p = 0.8894
    (Fig. 7E)TrialF(7,392) = 17.89 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,56) = 4.46 *p = 0.0392
    Genotype × trialF(14,392) = 0.76p = 0.7082
    Genotype × sexF(2,56) = 0.29p = 0.7499
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.9642
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9906
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9351
    fEPSP slopeTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,26) = 0.34p = 0.5634
    (Fig. 7F)IntensityF(7,182) = 29.71 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,182) = 6.30 *p < 0.0001
    Fiber volleyTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,11) = 0.46p = 0.5135
    IntensityF(7,77) = 24.06 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,77) = 0.16p = 0.9915
    Vehicle-treated Shank3GCreTam+ mice
    Nest widthThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,56) = 2.33p = 0.1065
    (Fig. 8A)TimeF(2,112) = 34.73 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,56) = 0.44p = 0.5100
    Genotype × timeF(4,112) = 0.91p = 0.4630
    Genotype × sexF(2,56) = 2.13p = 0.1287
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.6704
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.0637
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.3149
    Nest heightThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,56) = 2.72p = 0.0749
    (Fig. 8B)TimeF(2,112) = 72.06 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,56) = 0.59 *p = 0.0446
    Genotype × timeF(4,112) = 1.32p = 0.2687
    Genotype × sexF(2,56) = 0.82p = 0.4466
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.6704
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.0637
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.3149
    Marble buryingTwo-way ANOVAGenotypeF(2,55) = 15.78 *p < 0.0001
    (Fig. 8C)SexF(1,55) = 0.50p = 0.4810
    Genotype × sexF(2,55) = 0.12p = 0.8874
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+ *p = 0.0005
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+ *p = 0.0001
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.3265
    LocomotorThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(2,56) = 2.48p = 0.0926
    (Fig. 8D)TimeF(23,1288) = 101.49 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,56) = 1.98p = 0.1644
    Genotype × timeF(46,1288) = 2.57 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × sexF(2,56) = 0.11p = 0.8946
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.0842
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9893
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.1944
    RotarodThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,56) = 0.12p = 0.8894
    (Fig. 8E)TrialF(7,392) = 17.89 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,56) = 4.46 *p = 0.0392
    Genotype × trialF(14,392) = 0.76p = 0.7082
    Genotype × sexF(2,56) = 0.29p = 0.7499
    Tukey HSDShank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3+/GCreTam+p = 0.9642
    Shank3+/+CreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9906
    Shank3+/GCreTam+ vsShank3G/GCreTam+p = 0.9351
    fEPSP slopeTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,30) = 0.26p = 0.6130
    (Fig. 8F)IntensityF(7,210) = 52.49 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,210) = 0.45p = 0.8699
    Fiber volleyTwo-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,15) = 1.80p = 0.1995
    IntensityF(7,105) = 155.78 *p < 0.0001
    Genotype × intensityF(7,105) = 2.96 *p = 0.0072
    Effect of CAG-CreTam on Shank3+/+ mice
    Nest heightThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,49) = 3.12p = 0.0837
    TimeF(2,98) = 44.08 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,49) = 3.83p = 0.0559
    CAG-CreTam × timeF(2,98) = 1.65p = 0.1972
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(2,549 = 0.19p = 0.6674
    Nest widthThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,49) = 0.08p = 0.7752
    TimeF(2,98) = 27.22 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,49) = 3.37p = 0.0725
    CAG-CreTam × timeF(2,98) = 1.28p = 0.2839
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(2,49) = 0.299p = 0.5872
    MarbleTwo-way ANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,49) = 0.34 *p = 0.5654
    BuryingSexF(1,49) = 2.93p = 0.0934
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(1,49) = 0.43p = 0.5127
    LocomotorThree-way rmANOVAGenotypeF(1,49) = 16.00 *p = 0.0002
    TimeF(23,1127) = 110.93 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,49) = 2.38p = 0.1293
    CAG-CreTam × timeF(23,1127) = 1.46p = 0.0749
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(1,49) = 0.19p = 0.6626
    RotarodThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,49) = 0.21p = 0.6472
    TrialF(7,343) = 19.90 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,49) = 1.99p = 0.1651
    CAG-CreTam × trialF(7,343) = 0.76p = 0.6180
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(1,49) = 0.79p = 0.5973
    fEPSP slopeTwo-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,24) = 86.39 *p < 0.0001
    (Fig. 9A)IntensityF(7,168) = 58.00 *p < 0.0001
    CAG-CreTam × intensityF(7,168) = 3.60 *p = 0.0012
    Fiber volleyTwo-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,9) = 0.69p = 0.4270
    IntensityF(7,63) = 56.18 *p < 0.0001
    CAG-CreTam × intensityF(7,63) = 2.95 *p = 0.0098
    Effect of CAG-CreTam on Shank3G/ G mice
    Nest heightThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,30) = 0.33p = 0.5693
    TimeF(2,60) = 21.20 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,30) = 1.94p = 0.1736
    CAG-CreTam × timeF(2,60) = 0.38p = 0.6865
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(2,60) = 0.44p = 0.5132
    Nest widthThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,30) = 0.12p = 0.7331
    TimeF(2,60) = 20.06 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,30) = 3.37p = 0.0762
    CAG-CreTam × timeF(2,60) = 0.08p = 0.9219
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(2,60) = 0.02p = 0.8884
    MarbleTwo-way ANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,30) = 0.00p = 0.9828
    BuryingSexF(1,30) = 0.40p = 0.5294
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(1,30) = 1.03p = 0.3179
    LocomotorThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,30) = 11.83 *p = 0.0017
    TimeF(23,690) = 36.91 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,30) = 0.05p = 0.8193
    CAG-CreTam × timeF(23,690) = 0.89p = 0.6145
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(1,30) = 0.18p = 0.6777
    RotarodThree-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,30) = 5.99 *p = 0.0205
    TrialF(7,210) = 4.39 *p < 0.0001
    SexF(1,30) = 1.99p = 0.1682
    CAG-CreTam × trialF(7,210) = 1.00p = 0.4323
    CAG-CreTam × sexF(1,30) = 1.42p = 0.2422
    fEPSP slopeTwo-way rmANOVACAG-CreTamF(1,23) = 0.58p = 0.4527
    (Fig. 9B)IntensityF(7,161) = 33.71 *p < 0.0001
    CAG-CreTam × intensityF(7,161) = 0.173p = 0.9904
    Fiber volleyCAG-CreTamF(1,8) = 0.20p = 0.6695
    IntensityF(7,56) = 28.25 *p < 0.0001
    CAG-CreTam × intensityF(7,56) = 2.67 *p = 0.0184
    • * Significant at 0.05 level.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 6 (5)
eNeuro
Vol. 6, Issue 5
September/October 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
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.
Apparent Genetic Rescue of Adult Shank3 Exon 21 Insertion Mutation Mice Tempered by Appropriate Control Experiments
(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
Apparent Genetic Rescue of Adult Shank3 Exon 21 Insertion Mutation Mice Tempered by Appropriate Control Experiments
Haley E. Speed, Mehreen Kouser, Zhong Xuan, Shunan Liu, Anne Duong, Craig M. Powell
eNeuro 26 August 2019, 6 (5) ENEURO.0317-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0317-19.2019

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
Apparent Genetic Rescue of Adult Shank3 Exon 21 Insertion Mutation Mice Tempered by Appropriate Control Experiments
Haley E. Speed, Mehreen Kouser, Zhong Xuan, Shunan Liu, Anne Duong, Craig M. Powell
eNeuro 26 August 2019, 6 (5) ENEURO.0317-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0317-19.2019
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
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • autism
  • Cre-recombinase
  • reversal
  • Shank3
  • tamoxifen

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
  • TrkB Signaling Influences Gene Expression in Cortistatin-Expressing Interneurons
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
Show more New Research

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Alpha-2 Adrenergic Agonists Reduce Heavy Alcohol Drinking and Improve Cognitive Performance in Mice
  • The E-protein Daughterless regulates olfactory learning of adult Drosophila melanogaster
  • Lasting Increases in Neuronal Activity and Serotonergic Receptor Expression Following Gestational Chlorpyrifos Exposure
Show more Disorders of the Nervous System

Subjects

  • Disorders of the Nervous System
  • 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 © 2026 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.