FIGURE 2

ppp2r2c‐compromised fish exhibit abnormal behaviors that are reversed by MPH. (a) Experimental design. Behavioral tests in WT and ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 (6 months old) with or without MPH treatment for 3 days. Parameters recorded and analyzed in light–dark transition assay. (b) Representative diagram of locomotion activity of adult fish during the 30‐s lights‐on period and 30 s before lights‐on. (c) Quantification of the highly active state duration during the 30‐s lights‐on period (see Section 4; n = 9 for every group). (d) Representative movement tracks (gray lines) in the mirror attack assay of WT and ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 (6 months old), with or without MPH treatment for 3 days, during the 5‐min trial. Blue boxes show the position of the mirror. (e) Mirror attacking latency at indicated time point in 5‐min trail. (Statistic difference are shown as WT vs. ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 (black *), ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 vs. ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 ‐MPH (red *)). (f) Quantification of the number of mirror attacks in the 5‐min intervals (n = 9 for WT‐vehicle, WT‐MPH, and ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 ‐vehicle; n = 8 for ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 ‐MPH). (g) Representative movement tracks (gray lines) of WT and ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 (6 months old), with or without MPH treatment for 3 days, during the 30‐min trial in the open field test. The red square shows the central area of the tank. (h) Central area latency at indicated time point in 30‐min trail. (Statistic difference is shown as WT vs. ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 (black *), ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 vs. ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 ‐MPH (red *)). (i) Cumulative time that adult fish stayed within the central area (n = 7 for ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 ‐vehicle; n = 8 for WT‐vehicle and WT‐MPH; n = 9 for ppp2r2c ^m1/m1 ‐MPH). Data are means ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; two‐way ANOVA