Scheduled feeding improves behavioral outcomes and reduces inflammation in a mouse model of fragile X syndrome
- Molecular, Cellular, Integrative Physiology Graduate Program, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
- Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
- Integrated Biology and Physiology Program, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine; University of California, Los Angeles, United States
Figures
Figure 1
The Fmr1 KO mice exhibit reduced and fragmented sleep during the light phase.
(A) Waveforms of daily rhythms in sleep behavior under standard 12:12 hr light–dark (LD) cycles in WT (blue circle) and Fmr1 KO (yellow triangle) mice. Zeitgeber Time (ZT) 0 corresponds to lights on, and ZT12 to lights off. Sleep was defined by immobility and binned in 1-hr intervals. Both genotypes exhibited clear diurnal rhythms, but the Fmr1 KO mice showed significantly less sleep during the light phase and at several times in the dark phase. Asterisks indicate significant differences between genotypes at individual time points (two-way ANOVA with genotype and time as factors, followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test, *p < 0.05). The white/black bar on the top indicates the LD cycle; gray shading indicates the dark-phase time-period. (B–D) Immobility-defined sleep metrics during the light-phase. Compared to WT, Fmr1 KO mice showed a greater number of sleep bouts, indicating sleep fragmentation, and of shorter duration. Histograms show the means ± SEM with the values from individual animals overlaid. Genotypic differences were analyzed by t-test (*p < 0.05). See Table 1.
Figure 2 with 1 supplement
The Fmr1 KO mice show unstable locomotor rhythms.
(A) Representative actograms showing daily rhythms in wheel-running activity under LD followed by constant darkness (DD) in WT (left) and Fmr1 KO (right) mice. Activity levels were normalized to 85% of the most active mouse. Each row represents two consecutive days, and the second day is repeated at the beginning of the next row. (B) Waveforms of daily rhythms in cage activity in WT (blue circle) and Fmr1 KO (yellow triangle) mice under the LD cycles. Activity under LD (1 hr bins) was analyzed by two-way ANOVA with genotype and time as factors followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test (*p < 0.05). There were significant effects of both time (F = 8.84; p = 0.003) and genotype (F = 39.75; p < 0.001) on the temporal pattern of the locomotor activity rhythms. Note that significant genotypic differences were found before and after drawn. Activity metrics in LD (C) and DD (D). Rhythmic power under both LD and DD conditions was significantly reduced in the mutants, which also presented higher imprecision in the activity onset in DD. Histograms show the means ± SEM with the values from individual animals overlaid. Genotypic differences were analyzed by t-test (*p < 0.05). See Table 2.
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Graphic presentation of the experimental design.
(A) Mice were entrained to a 12:12 hr light–dark (LD) cycle followed by 14 days of cage activity and 3 days of immobility sleep recordings, then the animals were released in constant darkness (DD) to measure their activity rhythms driven by the endogenous clock (free-running activity) and not by external cues. Behavioral tests were conducted after the sleep/wake cycles recordings in a different group of mice. (B) A different cohort of WT and Fmr1 KO mice after entrainment to the LD cycle for 2 weeks was divided into two groups, one was held on ad libitum feeding (ALF) and one on a scheduled feeding regimen (time-restricted feeding, TRF). Mice were allowed to freely eat for 6 hr between ZT15 and ZT21. After cage activity and immobility sleep were recorded, the mice were tested for social and repetitive behaviors. Blood was collected in the early light phase.
Figure 3
The Fmr1 KO mice display deficits in light-regulated circadian behaviors.
(A, B) Photic-suppression (masking) of activity in response to a 1 hr light (300 lx, 4500 K) pulse at ZT 14 (lights off; n = 10/genotype). The activity level during the light exposure was compared to the activity level during the equivalent hour (ZT 14–15) on the day before the treatment (baseline activity). (A) The genotypic difference in the fold change was determined by t-test, with the mutants showing a significantly reduced suppression of activity as compared to the WT (*p = 0.05). (B) Changes in the activity levels of each individual mouse during the baseline window and the light masking were analyzed using a paired t-test. Within-genotype comparisons showed significant suppression in WT (p < 0.001), but not in KO mice (p = 0.12). (C, D) Entrainment induced by a 6-hr-phase advanced LD cycle. Representative actograms of light-induced phase shifts of wheel-running activity rhythms (C). The white/black bars on the top of actograms indicate the LD cycle before (upper) and after (lower) the 6-hr phase advance. The gray shading in the waveforms indicates the dark phase time--period. The arrows next to the actograms indicate the day when the 6-hr phase advance was applied. (D) Quantification of the days to re-entrain shows that the KO mice required more time to adjust (two-way ANOVA: genotype effect F(1,285) = 130.157, p < 0.001; followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test *p < 0.001). The entrainment shifting in the WT (blue circle) and the Fmr1 KO (yellow triangle) was quantified by the difference between the activity onset and the new ZT12 on each day. The yellow and blue arrowheads in the graph indicate the day when the activity rhythms are considered well entrained. See Table 3.
Figure 4
The Fmr1 KO mice exhibit difficulty in adapting to the skeleton photic period (SPP).
(A) Representative actograms of daily rhythms in cage activity under standard LD cycles (2 weeks) followed by the SPP (1 hr light:11 hr dark:1 hr light:11 hr dark) in WT (left) and Fmr1 KO (right) mice. The white/black bars on the top of actograms indicate the baseline LD cycle (upper) and the SPP LD cycles (lower). The gray shading in the waveforms indicates the time of the dark phases. (B) Measures of locomotor activity rhythms under SPP. Many of the parameters measured were significantly different between the genotypes, with the mutants being more impacted and showing lower rhythmic power and increased variability of the activity onset. In addition, the mutants displayed higher activity during their day. Histograms show the means ± SEM with the values from each individual animal overlaid. Significant differences (p < 0.05), determined by t-test or Mann–Whitney test, are indicated with an asterisk. (C, D) Light-induced phase delay of free-running activity rhythms in mice exposed to light (300 lx, 4500 K) for 15 min at circadian time (CT) 16. Mice were held in constant darkness. By definition, CT 12 is the beginning of the activity cycle in DD for a nocturnal organism. Examples of light-induced phase shifts of wheel-running activity rhythms (C) of WT (left) and Fmr1 KO (right) and quantified phase delay (D). In the representative actograms, the yellow lines indicate the best-fit line of the activity onset across the 10 days before and after the light pulse. The amount of phase delay is determined by the difference between the two lines on the day after the light pulse. The sunny-shape symbols indicate when the mice were exposed to light (CT16). Compared to WT, the Fmr1 KO showed reduced phase shift of their activity rhythms (Mann–Whitney U, *p = 0.011). See Table 3.
Figure 5 with 1 supplement
Abnormal retinal-suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) connectivity in the Fmr1 KO mice.
To trace the projections from the retina to the SCN via the retino-hypothalamic tract (RHT), WT and Fmr1 KO mice received a bilateral intravitreal injection of Cholera Toxin (β-subunit) conjugated to Alexa Fluor555 and were perfused 72 hr later. (A) Lower intensity of the fluorescently labeled RHT projections can be observed both laterally and medially to the ventral part of the SCN in the Fmr1 KO mice (white arrows) as compared to WT, suggesting a loss of afferent projections to the SCN. (B, C) Densitometric analysis of the distribution of the Cholera Toxin fluorescence intensity in the ventral SCN (see also Figure 5—figure supplement 1) of WT and Fmr1 KO mice. The intensity peaks of the profile plot of four to five consecutive coronal sections containing the middle SCN were aligned and then averaged to obtain a single curve per animal. Results are shown as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the left (B) and the right (C) SCN of each genotype. (D, E) Light-induction of cFos was greatly reduced in the SCN of the Fmr1 KO mice compared to WT. Mice held in DD were exposed to light (300 lx, 4500 K) for 15 min at CT 16 and perfused 45 min later (CT 17). (D) Representative serial images of light-evoked cFos expression in the SCN. The inset in the lower left panel shows the lack of cFos immunopositive cells in the SCN of mice held in DD but not exposed to light. Dotted magenta lines delineate the SCN. OC = optic chiasm, V = third ventricle. (E) The number of immune-positive cells in the left and right SCN from 3 to 5 consecutive coronal sections per animal were averaged to obtain one number per animal and are presented as the mean ± SD per genotype. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test, *p = 0.0201. See Table 4.
Figure 5—figure supplement 1
Histomorphological Analysis and SCN Landmarks.
Top Panel: The distribution of the Cholera Toxin fluorescent signal was obtained for each left and right suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) using the Profile Plot Analysis feature of ImageJ. A rectangular box of fixed size (415.38 μm × 110.94 μm, width × height) was created to include the entire ventral part of the SCN. A column plot profile was generated whereby the x-axis represents the horizontal distance through the SCN (lateral to medial for the left SCN and medial to lateral for the right SCN, as indicated by the arrows) and the y-axis represents the average pixel intensity per vertical line within the rectangular box. Bottom Panels: Images with outlined the shell (green) and core (white) of the SCN, the master circadian clock, located in the anterior hypothalamus: OC = optic chiasm, V = third ventricle.
Figure 6 with 1 supplement
The deficits in social recognition and repetitive behaviors of the Fmr1 KO mice correlate with altered sleep behavior.
Tests of social behavior: (A) In the first stage of the three-chamber social test, when the testing mouse is given a choice between a stranger mouse and an inanimate object, the Fmr1 KO mice spent less time with the stranger mouse and had a lower social preference index (SPI) than the WT. (B) In the second stage, the testing mouse is given the choice between a chamber with a novel mouse and the one with the familiar mouse. The mutants spent less time with the novel mouse compared to the familiar one, and also in this phase exhibited lower social novelty preference (SNPI) as compared to the WT. (C) The possibility of reduced social recognition was further tested with the five-trial social test. In this test, the stranger mouse becomes a familiar mouse after four exposures to the testing mouse, then a novel mouse is introduced in the fifth trial. The WT mice showed a higher interest in the novel mouse compared to the Fmr1 KO mice. Tests of repetitive behaviors: The amount of digging in the bedding (D) and the percentage of marbles buried (E) were measured with the marble bury test. The Fmr1 KO mice spent longer time digging and buried more marbles compared to WT. (F) Grooming behavior, assessed in a novel arena, was significantly higher in the Fmr1 KO mice as compared to WT. Histograms show the means ± SEM with the values from the individual animals overlaid. Significant differences (*p < 0.05) were determined by t-test or Mann–Whitney test. See also Table 5. Sleep duration (min, G, H) correlated with impaired social recognition and abnormal grooming behaviors. Sleep fragmentation, measured by number of sleep bouts, correlated only with grooming (I, J) (Pearson correlation test). See Table 6.
Figure 6—figure supplement 1
To assess social recognition memory, Fmr1 KO and WT mice underwent a five-trial social interaction paradigm in a neutral open-field arena.
Each trial lasted 2 min and was separated by a 5-min inter-trial interval. During trials 1–4, the test mouse was exposed to the same unfamiliar conspecific (mouse A) enclosed within a wire cup to permit olfactory but limited tactile interaction. In trial 5, a novel conspecific (mouse B, stranger) was introduced. Time spent investigating the stimulus mouse (defined as sniffing or directing the nose toward the enclosure in close proximity) was manually scored. A progressive decrease in investigation time across trials 1–4 reflects habituation, while a significant increase in trial 5 indicates dishabituation and suggests intact social recognition memory. (A) Box plots: time spent by the testing mice interacting in each of the five trials. The boundary of the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile, the line within the box marks the median and the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the 75th percentile. The whiskers above and below the box indicate the 90th and 10th percentiles. (B) Plots showing the interaction time for each mouse during fourth (familiar mouse) and fifth (novel mouse) trials. The WT mice exhibited significant increases in the time spent interacting with the stimulus mouse in the fifth trial as compared to the between the fourth (paired t-test, T(14) = 2.604, p = 0.021), while no differences were observed for the KO mice between the fourth and the fifth trials (T(14) = 0.624, p = 0.542). *P<0.05 forth vs fifth trial.
Figure 7 with 1 supplement
Amelioration of sleep/wake rhythms in the Fmr1 KO mutants by time-restricted feeding (TRF).
(A, B) Waveforms of daily rhythms in cage activity using infrared (IR) detection in the WT (circle) and Fmr1 KO (triangle) mice under ad libitum feeding (ALF) or TRF. The activity waveforms (1 hr bins) were analyzed using a three-way ANOVA with genotype, feeding regimen, and time as factors followed by Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. There were significant effects of genotype (F(1, 767) = 13.301; p < 0.001) and time (F(23, 767) = 94.188; p < 0.001), as well as significant interactions between genotype and time (p < 0.001) and feeding regimen and time (p < 0.001) on the locomotor activity rhythms of both WT and Fmr1 KO mice. The green area indicates the time period when the food hoppers were opened for 6 hr between ZT 15 and ZT 21. (C–E) Measures of locomotor activity rhythms: Both genotypes exhibited an increase in the power of the rhythms under TRF compared to ALF controls. The increase in early-day and late-night activity as well as the onset variability seen in the Fmr1 KO mice was corrected by the TRF. Data are shown as the means ± SEM; two-way ANOVA followed by Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test with genotype and feeding regimen as factors, *p < 0.05 significant differences within genotypes (different feeding regimen); #p < 0.05 significant differences between genotypes (same feeding regimen). (F, G) Waveforms of daily rhythms of immobility-defined sleep. The sleep waveforms (1 hr bins) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with time and feeding regimen as factors followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. There were significant effects of time for both WT (F(23, 351) = 9.828, p < 0.001) and Fmr1 KO (F(23, 351) = 1.806, p = 0.014) mice, but not of feeding regimens. Missing data points precluded the use of three-way ANOVA for these measures. (H–J) Measures of immobility-defined sleep in the light phase. Both genotypes held on TRF exhibited an increase in sleep duration and in sleep bout length as well as a reduction in sleep fragmentation, measured by the number of sleep bouts, compared to their ALF counterparts. Data are shown as the means ± SEM; two-way ANOVA followed by Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test with genotype and diet as factors, *p < 0.05 significant differences within genotype – between diet regimens; #p < 0.05 significant differences between genotypes – same feeding regimen. See Table 7.
Figure 7—figure supplement 1
Both genotypes well adapt to the feeding regimen.
(A) Food intake was similar across genotypes and conditions. Over the 2 weeks of scheduled feeding, no significant differences were found in the total amount of food consumed between genotypes (F(1, 31) = 3.086, p = 0.090) or feeding schedules (F(1, 31) = 0.307, p = 0.584). If we just analyzed the food consumed over the first 3 days, there were no effects of genotype (F(1, 31) = 2.737, p = 0.109), albeit the time-restricted feeding (TRF) groups consumed less (F(1, 31) = 85.912, p < 0.001). (B) Prior to TRF, the mice had similar weights (WT: 22.1 ± 0.4 g; KO: 23.1 ± 0.4 g; t(30) = –1.748, p = 0.090). After 2 weeks on TRF, both WT and Fmr1 KO mice exhibited lower weights than their counterparts on ALF (F = 30.551; p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test (*p < 0.01).
Figure 8
Improved social memory and stereotypic grooming behavior in the Fmr1 KO mice after 2 weeks of time-restricted feeding (TRF).
(A) Social memory was evaluated with the five-trial social interaction test as described above. The social memory recognition was significantly augmented in the Fmr1 KO by the intervention, suggesting that the treated mutants were, perhaps, able to distinguish the novel mouse from the familiar mouse. The time spent in social interactions with the novel mouse in the fifth trial was increased to WT-like levels in the mutants on TRF. Paired t-tests were used to evaluate significant differences in the time spent interacting with the test mouse in the fourth (familiar mouse) and fifth (novel mouse) trials. *p < 0.05 indicates the significant time spent with the novel mouse compared to the familiar mouse. (B) Grooming was assessed in a novel arena in mice of each genotype (WT, Fmr1 KO) under each feeding condition and the resulting data analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test with feeding regimen and genotype as factors. *p < 0.05 indicates the significant difference within genotype – between diet regimens, and #p < 0.05 those between genotypes – same feeding regimen. (C) TRF did not alter the overall locomotion in the treated mice. See Table 8.
Figure 9
Time-restricted feeding (TRF) repristinates the levels IL-12 and IFNƳ in the plasma of Fmr1 KO mice to WT levels.
(A) The levels of selected plasma pro-inflammatory markers are shown. The increase in IL-12 and IFNƳ in the mutants is lowered by TRF to WT levels. The full list of the assayed makers is reported in Table 9. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test with feeding regimen and genotype as factors. *p < 0.05 indicates the significant difference within genotype – between feeding regimen, and #p < 0.05 between genotypes – same feeding regimen. (B, C) Correlations between IL-12 or IFN-γ levels and social recognition or grooming behavior. IL-12 levels correlated with both behaviors. Data were analyzed using the Pearson Correlation, and the coefficients are reported in Table 10.
Tables
Table 1
Altered behavioral sleep parameters in the Fmr1 KO mice.
Comparisons of sleep behavior in age-matched male WT and Fmr1 KO mice (n = 6/group). Values are shown as the averages ± SEM. For the 24 hr dataset, values were analyzed using a t-test. Possible day/night differences were analyzed with two-way ANOVA using genotype (WT vs. Fmr1 KO) and time (day vs. night) as factors, followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. Asterisks indicate significant differences between genotypes, while crosshatch those between day and night. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| 24 hr totals | WT | Fmr1 KO | t test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sleep duration (min) | 646.1 ± 30.2 | 568.6 ± 29.8 | t(10)=1.973; p=0.077 | ||||
| Sleep bouts (#) | 49.9 ± 2.7 | 50.3 ± 2.0 | t(10)=−0.136; p=0.895 | ||||
| Sleep bout length (min) | 15.7 ± 1.1 | 13.1 ± 0.6* | t(10)=2.329; p=0.042 | ||||
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Two-way ANOVA | |||||
| Measures | Day | Night | Day | Night | Genotype | Time | Interaction |
| Sleep duration (min) | 464 ± 19.4# | 182 ± 13.5 | 414 ± 14.8*# | 154.6 ± 17.7 | F(1,23)=6.37; p=0.02 | F(1,23)=319.5; p<0.001 | F(1,23)=0.56; p=0.46 |
| Sleep bout (#) | 24.4 ± 1.8 | 25.5 ± 2.1 | 29.6 ± 1.2*# | 20.7 ± 1.9 | F(1,23)=0.017; p=0.90 | F(1,23)=5.70; p=0.027 | F(1,23)=9.33; p=0.006 |
| Sleep bout length (min) | 22.4 ± 1.9# | 9.0 ± 0.7 | 16.6 ± 0.8*# | 9.5 ± 0.6 | F(1,23)=6.77; p=0.017 | F(1,23)=100.9; p<0.001 | F(1,23)=9.64; p=0.006 |
| Max bout length (min) | 81.3 ± 6.0# | 30.5 ± 3.0 | 58 ± 3.09*# | 38.7 ± 3.8 | F(1,23)=4.02; p=0.059 | F(1,23)=85.96; p<0.001 | F(1,23)=17.33; p<0.001 |
Table 2
Activity rhythms were altered in the Fmr1 KO mutants.
The locomotor activity rhythms of adult male WT and Fmr1 KO mice in the standard 12:12 hr LD cycles and constant darkness (DD) were monitored using wheel running activity (n = 6/group). Values are shown as the averages ± SEM. If the assumptions of normality and equal variance were met, a t-test was used to analyze the data; otherwise, the Mann–Whitney rank sum test was used. Asterisks indicate significant differences between genotypes. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Statistical values | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LD | |||
| Rhythmic power (% variation) | 42.8 ± 1.7 | 30.4±3.8* | t(10)=3.309; p=0.008 |
| Cage activity (rev) | 19,875 ± 2197 | 24,302 ± 4294 | t(10)=−1.005; p=0.340 |
| Amplitude (rev) | 2553 ± 246 | 2771±406 | t(10)=−0.502; p=0.630 |
| Activity in the light phase (ZT 0–3, rev) | 418 ± 50.7 | 1099 ± 165* | U=0.000; p=0.002 |
| Onset variability (min) | 8.1 ± 2.0 | 24.5 ± 10.6 | t(10)=−2.060; p=0.066 |
| Fragmentation (bouts #) | 21.0 ± 0.6 | 24.2 ± 2.5 | U=12.000; p=0.390 |
| DD | |||
| Period (tau; hr) | 23.6 ± 0.1 | 23.4 ± 0.2 | t(10)=0.919; p=0.380 |
| Rhythmic power (% variation) | 47.4 ± 1.2 | 39.1 ± 2.0* | t(10)=5.319; p=0.003 |
| Cage activity (rev) | 27,225 ± 1495 | 27914 ± 3,218 | t(10)=−0.213; p=0.836 |
| Onset variability (min) | 16.3 ± 2.9 | 42.5 ± 7.9* | t(10)=−3.387; p=0.007 |
| Fragmentation (bouts #) | 21.3 ± 1.2 | 24.1±1.8 | t(10)=−1.416; p=0.187 |
Table 3
Deficits in circadian light response in the Fmr1 KO mice.
The circadian light response of male adult WT and Fmr1 KO mice was evaluated using four behavioral assays and wheel-running activity. First, masking or suppression of activity that occurs when mice are exposed to 1 hr of light during the night at ZT 14 (n = 10 per group). Second, the number of days required for the activity rhythms to re-synchronize to a 6-hr phase advance of the LD cycle (n = 11 per group). Third, the mice were held on a skeleton photoperiod (1:11:1:11 h LD) and basic locomotor activity parameters were measured. Fourth, to measure the magnitude of a light-evoked phase shift of the circadian system, mice were held in constant dark (DD) and exposed to light for 15 min at CT 16 (n = 8 per group). Values are shown as the averages ± SEM. If the assumptions of normality and equal variance were met, a t-test was used to analyze the data; otherwise, the Mann–Whitney rank sum test was used. Asterisks indicate significant differences between genotypes. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Stats | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Masking (% suppression) | 77.7 ± 5.8 | 32.5 ± 10.0* | t(18)=4.131; p=0.006 |
| Re-entrainment (days) | 5.9 ± 0.6 | 11.3 ± 0.4* | t(20)=−6.868; p<0.001 |
| Skeleton photo period (SPP) | |||
| Period (tau; h) | 24.0 ± 0.0 | 23.7 ± 0.2* | U=10.500; p=0.021 |
| Rhythmic power (% variation) | 39.4 ± 2.0 | 24.0 ± 1.6* | t(14)=6.112; p<0.001 |
| Cage activity (rev) | 21,711 ± 1662 | 25,257 ± 2954 | t(14)=−1.119; p=0.282 |
| Activity in the day (%) | 5.29 ± 1.5 | 34.7 ± 6.0* | U=0.000; p<0.001 |
| Onset variability (min) | 18.1 ± 2.8 | 59.5 ± 9.1* | t(14)=−4.668; p<0.001 |
| Light-evoked phase shift (min) | –135.6 ± 26.9 | –64.0 ± 7.7* | U=5.500; p=0.011 |
| Skeleton photo period (SPP) | |||
| Period (tau; hr) | 24.0 ± 0.0 | 23.7 ± 0.2* | U=10.500; p=0.021 |
| Rhythmic power (% variation) | 39.4 ± 2.0 | 24.0 ± 1.6* | t(14)=6.112; p<0.001 |
| Cage activity (rev) | 21,711 ± 1662 | 25,257 ± 2954 | t(14)=−1.119; p=0.282 |
| Activity in the day (%) | 5.29 ± 1.5 | 34.7 ± 6.0* | U=0.000; p<0.001 |
| Onset variability (min) | 18.1 ± 2.8 | 59.5 ± 9.1* | t(14)=−4.668; p<0.001 |
| Light-evoked phase shift (min) | –135.6 ± 26.9 | –64.0 ± 7.7* | U=5.500; p=0.011 |
Table 4
Compromised retinal–SCN connectivity.
Subtle decrease in the relative intensity of Cholera Toxin (β subunit) in the retinal afferents to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of Fmr1 KO mice. There was a stronger impact of the loss of FMRP on the induction of light-evoked cFos expression in the SCN. Control no pulse = WT mice held in DD but not exposed to the light pulse at CT16. Histomorphometrical analysis of the SCN revealed no differences between WT and Fmr1 male mice. All measurements were performed by two independent observers masked to the experimental groups. Results are shown as the mean ± SD. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| Cholera Toxin | WT (n = 3) | Fmr1 KO (n=3) | Mann–Whitney test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean intensity (a.u.) | 247.2 ± 52.8 | 221.8 ± 29.5 | U=2; p=0.4000 |
| cFos immunopositive cells (#) | WT (n=4) | Fmr1 KO (n=4) | Control no pulse (n=3) |
| 105.9 ± 27.5 | 52.96 ± 19.4* | 7.720 ± 1.28 | |
| One-way ANOVA | F(2,8)=19.75; p=0.0008 | ||
| WT (n=6) | Fmr1 KO (n=6) | Mann–Whitney test | |
| Area (µm2) | 308,184 ± 6198 | 294,721 ± 11,561 | U=11; p=0.3095 |
| Perimeter (µm) | 1178 ± 40.84 | 1154 ± 60.82 | U=11; p=0.3095 |
| Height (µm) | 395.2 ± 21.69 | 386.9 ± 20.13 | U=11; p=0.3095 |
| Width (µm) | 338.1 ± 16.05 | 333.7 ± 24.08 | U=12; p=0.3939 |
Table 5
Fmr1 KO mice present with deficits in social discrimination.
Comparisons of social discrimination behavior in age-matched WT and Fmr1 KO male mice (n = 8 per group) were assessed using the three-chamber and the five-trial social interaction test. Social preference index (SPI) = difference in the time spent with the novel mouse and object divided by the sum of the time spent with the novel mouse and the object. Social novelty preference index (SNPI) = difference in the time spent with the novel and familiar mouse divided by the sum of the time spent with both the novel and familiar mice. The repetitive behavior in WT and Fmr1 KO mice was (n = 14/genotype) assessed using the marble bury and grooming tests. Values are shown as the averages ± SEM. If the assumptions of normality and equal variance were met, a t-test was used to analyze the data; otherwise, the Mann–Whitney test was used. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Statistical values | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Three-chamber social test | |||
| Time with object (s) | 154 ± 7.4 | 184 ± 13.3 | t(14)=−2.100; p=0.054 |
| Time with mouse (s) | 236 ± 13.6 | 210 ± 14.5 | t(14)=1.777; p=0.097 |
| SPI | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.06 ± 0.05* | U=12.500; p=0.038 |
| Three-chamber social recognition test | |||
| Familiar-mouse chamber (s) | 143 ± 11.2 | 173 ± 1.7* | U=11.000; p=0.028 |
| Novel-mouse chamber (s) | 225 ± 13.5 | 209.5 ± 14.2 | t(14)=0.879; p=0.394 |
| SNPI | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.09 ± 0.04* | t(14)=2.445; p=0.028 |
| Five-trial social recognition test | |||
| Familiar mouse (trials 1–4, s) | 154 ± 15.3 | 150 ± 20.9 | t(14)=0.153; p=0.881 |
| Novel mouse (trial 5, s) | 46.7 ± 2.8 | 25.9 ± 4.7* | t(14)=3.781; p=0.002 |
| Marble bury test | |||
| Digging in total of 30 min (s) | 19.8 ± 4.2 | 106 ± 28.0* | U=30.000; p=0.002 |
| Buried marbles (%) | 19.6 ± 6.1 | 45.8 ± 8.6* | t(26)=−2.255; p=0.017 |
| Distance traveled (m) | 49.1 ± 3.5 | 63.9 ± 2.7* | t(26)=−3.497; p=0.002 |
| Grooming test | |||
| Grooming (s) | 25.5 ± 2.3 | 54.4 ± 4.3* | U=13.000; p<0.001 |
| Distance traveled (m) | 67.7 ± 2.6 | 78.0 ± 2.4* | t(26)=−2.985; p=0.006 |
Table 6
Correlation between sleep disturbances and the severity of impaired behaviors in the Fmr1KO mice.
Data obtained from age-matched WT and Fmr1 KO mice housed under standard LD cycles were tested for associations with the Pearson correlation test. The most prominent sleep phenotypes were usually observed during the animals’ light-phase sleep; hence, only measures between ZT 0 and 12 were used for these analyses. The correlation coefficients are reported; those significant are shown in bold and labeled with an asterisk. Alpha = 0.05.
| Three-chamber social test(SNPI) | Social recognition(trial 5, s) | Digging (s) | Marble buried (%) | Grooming (s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhythmic power (% V) | 0.18 | 0.43 | 0.13 | –0.051 | –0.62* |
| Onset variability (min) | –0.37 | –0.4 | 0.23 | 0.61* | 0.63* |
| Sleep duration (min) | 0.47 | 0.86* | –0.3 | –0.52 | –0.8* |
| Sleep bout (#) | –0.39 | –0.53 | 0.27 | 0.78* | 0.7* |
| Avg. sleep bout length (min) | 0.44 | 0.59* | –0.29 | –0.71* | –0.75* |
| MAX sleep bout length (min) | 0.49 | 0.76* | –0.4 | –0.65* | –0.78* |
Table 7
Scheduled feeding improved sleep/wake rhythms in the Fmr1 KO mutants.
Locomotor activity rhythms and immobility-defined sleep were recorded from WT and Fmr1 KO mice on ad libitum feeding (ALF) or time-restricted feeding (TRF; n = 8 per group). As the running wheels interfere with the feeders, we used infrared (IR) to measure the activity rhythms in these experiments. Since the most prominent sleep phenotypes were observed during the light-phase sleep and sleep recordings were paused during the dark phase for adding (ZT15) and removing (ZT21) food, the analyses below only focused on the effects of TRF on sleep during the light-phase sleep (ZT 0–12). Values are shown as the averages ± SEM. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with genotype and treatment as factors, followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. Asterisks indicate significant differences within genotype – different feeding regimen, while crosshatch indicates significant differences between genotypes – same feeding regimen. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Two-way ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activity rhythms | ALF | TRF | ALF | TRF | Genotype | Treatment | Interaction |
| Rhythmic power (% variation) | 41.8 ± 3.8 | 50.9 ± 3.1* | 33.2 ± 3.8 | 51.1 ± 2.2* | F(1, 31)=1.9; p=0.18 | F(1, 31)=19.41; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=2.04; p=0.17 |
| Cage activity (a.u.) | 4307 ± 517 | 4064 ± 396 | 3748 ± 402 | 3750 ± 471 | F(1, 31)=1.08; p=0.31 | F(1, 31)=0.082; p=0.78 | F(1, 31)=0.085; p=0.77 |
| Light-phase activity (ZT 0–3, a.u.) | 255 ± 18.9 | 194 ± 24.3 | 443 ± 59.6# | 246 ± 42.0* | F(1, 31)=10.44; p=0.03 | F(1, 31)=12.14; p=0.002 | F(1, 31)=3.38; p=0.07 |
| Onset variability (min) | 6.8 ± 1.6 | 9.4 ± 1.3 | 38.5 ± 7.5# | 6.8 ± 0.9* | F(1, 31)=15.58; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=15.70; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=21.68; p<0.001 |
| Fragmentation (bouts #) | 29.3 ± 1.7 | 23.4 ± 1.0* | 29.5 ± 1.8 | 23.4 ± 1.1* | F(1, 31)=0.11; p=0.74 | F(1, 31)=21.91; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=0.23; p=0.64 |
| Sleep | |||||||
| Sleep duration (min) | 414 ± 6.3 | 525 ± 11.9* | 384 ± 7.4# | 481 ± 15.7*# | F(1, 31)=18.35; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=127.19; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=0.96; p=0.34 |
| Sleep bouts (#) | 20.2 ± 1.3 | 12.7 ± 0.8* | 21.4 ± 1.1 | 15.4 ± 0.9* | F(1, 31)=4.21; p=0.05 | F(1, 31)=47.94; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=0.59; p=0.45 |
| Avg. sleep bout length (min) | 24.6 ± 1.7 | 47.0 ± 3.2* | 21.7 ± 1.04 | 35.3 ± 2.7*# | F(1, 31)=11.04; p=0.002 | F(1, 31)=68.3; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=4.03; p=0.055 |
| MAX sleep bout length (min) | 96.4 ± 4.3 | 137 ± 3.3* | 88.3 ± 3.1 | 109 ± 4.7*# | F(1, 31)=25.03; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=68.76; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=7.64; p=0.01 |
Table 8
Scheduled feeding improved social recognition memory and reduced grooming behavior in the Fmr1 KO mice.
Adult male WT and Fmr1 KO mice on ad libitum feeding (ALF) or time-restricted feeding (TRF) (n = 8 per group) were exposed to the five-trial social test and the grooming test. Data are shown as the averages ± SEM and were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with genotype and treatment as factors followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. Asterisks indicate significant differences within genotype – different feeding regimen, while crosshatch those between genotypes – same feeding regimen. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Two-way ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measures | ALF | TRF | ALF | TRF | Genotype | Treatment | Interaction |
| Familiar mouse (trials 1–4, s) | 80.5 ± 12 | 96.5 ± 14 | 67.5 ± 4.7 | 95.8 ± 15 | F(1, 31)=0.36; p=0.55 | F(1, 31)=3.77; p=0.062 | F(1, 31)=0.29; p=0.59 |
| Novel mouse (trial 5, s) | 43.8 ± 8.9 | 66.1 ± 8.8 | 23.3 ± 4.0# | 50.3 ± 10* | F(1, 31)=5.37; p=0.028 | F(1, 31)=9.88; p=0.004 | F(1, 31)=0.092; p=0.76 |
| Grooming (s) | 19.9 ± 1.2 | 16.9 ± 2.7 | 41.4 ± 1.7# | 26.2 ± 3.1*# | F(1, 31)=60.04; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=20.74; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=9.4; p=0.005 |
| Distance traveled (m) | 72.2 ± 4.2 | 66.6 ± 4.7 | 67.0 ± 6.6 | 63.2 ± 2.2 | F(1, 31)=0.98; p=0.33 | F(1, 31)=1.14; p=0.3 | F(1, 31)=0.039; p=0.85 |
Table 9
Scheduled feeding affects the levels of plasma cytokines in WT and Fmr1 KO mice.
The levels of several plasma cytokines were measured in WT and mutants held on ad libitum feeding (ALF) or time-restricted feeding (TRF) regimen (n = 8 per group). Values are shown as the averages ± SEM. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with genotype and treatment as factors followed by the Holm–Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. Asterisks indicate significant differences within genotype – different feeding regimen, while crosshatch those between genotypes – same feeding regimen. Alpha = 0.05. Degrees of freedom are reported between parentheses. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences.
| WT | Fmr1 KO | Two-way ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measures | ALF | TRF | ALF | TRF | Genotype | Treatment | Interaction |
| TNFα | 4.1 ± 1.0 | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.6 | 2.5 ± 1.0 | F(1, 31)=0.03; p=0.86 | F(1, 31)=3.42; p=0.075 | F(1, 31)=0.009; p=0.93 |
| IL-2 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.3* | F(1, 31)=0.16; p=0.69 | F(1, 31)=11.14; p=0.002 | F(1, 31)=1.83; p=0.19 |
| IL-3 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | F(1, 31)=0.32; p=0.58 | F(1, 31)=1.51; p=0.23 | F(1, 31)<0.001; p=0.98 |
| IL-5 | 14.1 ± 2.1 | 5.9 ± 1.1* | 12.4 ± 1.3 | 8.9 ± 1.9 | F(1, 31)=0.17; p=0.68 | F(1, 31)=14.35; p<0.001 | F(1, 31)=2.34; p=0.14 |
| IL-6 | 3.1 ± 0.5 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.1 ± 1.0 | F(1, 31)=0.046; p=0.83 | F(1, 31)=0.023; p=0.88 | F(1, 31)=0.5; p=0.49 |
| IL-10 | 4.8 ± 1.4 | 3.9 ± 1.5 | 3.4 ± 0.9 | 3.9 ± 1.9 | F(1, 31)=0.24; p=0.63 | F(1, 31)=0.027; p=0.87 | F(1, 31)=0.25; p=0.63 |
| IL-12 | 6.2 ± 2.3 | 5.0 ± 1.7 | 20.9 ± 4.0# | 5.2 ± 2.4* | F(1, 31)=8.44; p=0.007 | F(1, 31)=10.85; p=0.003 | F(1, 31)=7.97; p=0.009 |
| IL-15 | 40.2 ± 8.0 | 62.4 ± 25.5 | 49.7 ± 16.4 | 48.9 ± 14.4 | F(1, 31)=0.016; p=0.9 | F(1, 31)=0.44; p=0.51 | F(1, 31)=0.51; p=0.48 |
| IL-17 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 2.4 ± 1.0 | F(1, 31)=0.66; p=0.42 | F(1, 31)=0.0026; p=0.96 | F(1, 31)=2.61; p=0.12 |
| CCL-2 | 17.9 ± 4.6 | 12.3 ± 4.8 | 9.3 ± 1.6 | 11.2 ± 5.4 | F(1, 31)=1.42; p=0.24 | F(1, 31)=0.22; p=0.64 | F(1, 31)=0.87; p=0.36 |
| CCL-5 | 7.1 ± 0.6 | 6.0 ± 1.2 | 7.23 ± 1.2 | 5.4 ± 0.9 | F(1, 31)=0.05; p=0.82 | F(1, 31)=2.56; p=0.12 | F(1, 31)=0.11; p=0.74 |
| IFN-γ | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 5.4 ± 0.9# | 3.7 ± 0.6* | F(1, 31)=10.97; p=0.03 | F(1, 31)=1.96; p=0.17 | F(1, 31)=3.66; p=0.066 |
| CXCL-1 | 105.6 ± 17.5 | 91.0 ± 33.3 | 83.9 ± 14 | 90.3 ± 20.2 | F(1, 31)=0.28; p=0.6 | F(1, 31)=0.038; p=0.85 | F(1, 31)=0.25; p=0.62 |
| CXCL-5 | 368.4 ± 103.9 | 357.1 ± 155.5 | 346.6 ± 25.4 | 181.2 ± 48.4 | F(1, 31)=0.67; p=0.42 | F(1, 31)=0.017; p=0.9 | F(1, 31)=0.003; p=0.96 |
| CXCL-9 | 207.4 ± 54.3 | 225.9 ± 53.9 | 346.6 ± 25.4# | 181.2 ± 48.4* | F(1, 31)=1.15; p=0.29 | F(1, 31)=2.79; p=0.11 | F(1, 31)=4.37; p=0.046 |
Table 10
Correlation of the plasma levels of selected inflammatory markers with the severity of sleep disturbances and behavioral deficits.
Data from all four groups (WT ALF, WT TRF, Fmr1 KO ALF, Fmr1 KO TRF) were pooled and the Pearson correlation was applied. The correlation coefficients are reported; those significant are shown in bold and labeled with an asterisk. Alpha = 0.05.
| Measures | IL-12 (pg/ml) | IFN-γ (pg/ml) | CXCL-9 (pg/ml) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rhythmic power (% V) | –0.34 | –0.15 | 0.072 |
| Activity in the light phase (ZT 0–3, a.u.) | 0.73* | 0.59* | 0.58 |
| Onset variability (min) | 0.19* | 0.69 | 0.01 |
| Sleep duration (min) | –0.48* | –0.48* | 0.34 |
| Sleep bout counts (#) | 0.26 | 0.16 | –0.16 |
| Avg. sleep bout length (min) | –0.36* | –0.24 | 0.25 |
| MAX sleep bout length (min) | –0.38* | –0.42* | 0.34 |
| Social recognition (trial 5, s) | –0.41* | –0.14 | 0.34 |
| Repetitive behavior (grooming, s) | 0.44* | 0.45* | 0.26 |
Additional files
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Scheduled feeding improves behavioral outcomes and reduces inflammation in a mouse model of fragile X syndrome
eLife 14:RP104720.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.104720.4
