Table 2.

Comparisons of age-matched WT under ad lib conditions to Q175 mice under ad lib or TRF regimen (n = 8/group)

WT ad libWT ad lib vs Q175 ad libWT ad lib vs Q175 TRF
Locomotor activity rhythmAVG ± SEMDifferencep valueDifferencep value
Rhythmic power (V%)>32.59 ± 2.123.930.234−10.820.009
Cage activity (a.u/h)152.47 ± 19.0875.670.002U−8.230.7
Onset variability (min)23.20 ± 2.84−4.130.4617.410.068
Bouts/d8.44 ± 0.39−2.340.0070.500.517
Average bout length (rest-phase)166.82 ± 22.33106.200.00238.010.305
Sleep behavior rhythm
Daily sleep665.42 ± 16.28−57.120.081−20.890.534
Bouts/d8.44 ± 0.790.250.779−0.880.443
Average bout length (night)85.54 ± 21.52−74.830.07520.030.721
Awake time (ZT)12.03 ± 0.1−0.600.002U0.100.329
Awake deviation time I (min)13.62 ± 3.26−24.070.004−5.700.382
Motor performance
Latency to fall (s)320.65 ± 24.3764.650.119−99.40.028
Crossing errors (#)3.09 ± 0.21−4.35<0.001−1.880.002U
  • The results of t tests are reported if data passed normality tests. DF = 14. For parameters that did not pass normality tests, the Mann–Whitney rank-sum test was run and the U statistic reported; p < 0.05 was considered significant. In this and subsequent tables significant differences are shown in bold.