Can Mice Make Friends? Social Behavior of Phenotypically Autistic MiceSamantha Giordanoa, Sarah Guarigliab, Bradley Rehnberga, and Guang Wenb

a Department of Biological Science, York College of Pennsylvania b Institute of Basic Research, College of Staten Island

IntroductionATSDR Report on Brick Township NJ showed higher than EPA standard levels of Bromoform, Chloroform and Tetrachloroethylene were in the drinking water.

Autism Rates in Brick Township NJATSDR, 1998: 4.0 cases per 1,000 children Bertrand et al., 2001: 6.7 cases per 1,000 children

Research found that the triad of chemicals found in Brick Township can cause an increase in the c-AMP RII subunit in the brain in clam embryos (Kreiling et al., 2005).

Brain synapse functioning is disrupted in autism

Guariglia tested the triad of chemicals on mice. Two of the 3 features of autism tested: 1)Verbal impairments 2)Cognitive/behavioral impairments

3)NO test of Social Impairments***

QuestionDo the mice treated with the triad of chemicals from Brick

Township, NJ show social impairments??

MethodsFemale mice and their pups were given drinking water with different concentrations, control (0X), 1X, 10X, and 100X, of the triad of chemicals found in Brick Township NJ.

Social Behavior Apparatus adapted from Moy et al. (2004)

Social Behavior Test1) Habituation: Experimental mouse was alone in the test

apparatus2) Socialization: Novel mouse 1 (same sex as the experimental

mouse) was randomly placed into the left or right cup. The test mouse then entered the test apparatus.

3) Preference for Social Novelty: Novel mouse 2 (same sex as the Experimental Mouse) was placed into the empty cup. Both cups now contained control mice and the test mouse entered the test apparatus.

Analysis• Entries into left and right chambers• Time in left and right chambers• Time spent with novel mouse 1 • Time spent with novel mouse 2• Time spent sniffing novel mouse 1 • Time spent sniffing novel mouse 2 Literature Cited

1)Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Brick township investigation. ATSDR. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/brick/bti_p1.html2) Bertrand, J., Mars, A., Boyle, C., Bove, F., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., and Decoufle, P. 2001. Prevalence of Autism in a Untied States Population: Brick Township, New Jersey, Investigation. Pediatrics 108: 1155-1161. 3) Kreiling, J.A., Stephens, R. E., Reinisch, C. L. 2005. A Mixture of environmental contaminants increase c-AMP-dependent protein kinase in Spisula embryos. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 19: 9-18. 4) Moy, S. S., Nadler, J. J., Perez, A., Barbaro, R. P., Johns, J. M., Magnuson, T. R., Piven, J., and Crawley, J.N. 2004. Sociability and preference for social novelty in five inbred strains: an approach to assess autistic-like behavior in mice. Genes, Brain, and Behavior 3: 287-302.

AcknowledgementsA special thank you to the Institute of Basic Research and the College of Staten

Island.

6.4cm 6.4cm

50.8cm

17.1cm” 17.1cm16.4cm

24.8cm

Divider height: 21cm Doorway height: 6.4cm

Behavioral Apparatus

Results

Conclusions1) Both male and female mice were on average more

interested in novel mouse 2 which is inconsistent with an autistic phenotype.

2) Both male and female mice showed a preference to be social during socialization.

3) Female mice are more social than male mice.4) A larger sample size was needed to reduce variability.

Key Points Figures 1 and 2: Most of the mice preferred being in the area of novel mouse 1. The mice disliked being alone.

Key points Figure 2: The male mice, except for the 10X group, preferred novel mouse 2. The 10X group showed a more autistic behavior, a preference for the mouse they know better.

Key Points Figure 3: The female treated mice showed behavior opposite the control mice (although not with significant data). The treated mice preferred novel mouse 2 while the control mice preferred novel mouse 1.

Key Points Figure 5: The male mice showed a mixture of results; the 1X and 100X groups sniffed novel mouse 1 more than the control while the 10X group did not. All of the female experimental mice sniffed novel mouse 1 less than the control mice.

Key points Figure 6: The male groups showed no sniff preference among novel mouse 1 and 2!

Key points Figure 7: No definite conclusions could be drawn from the female mice sniff behavior.

Female Preference for SocialNovelty Times

Orig

inal M

ouse

Novel Mouse

Orig

inal M

ouse

Novel Mouse

Orig

inal M

ouse

Novel Mouse

Orig

inal M

ouse

Novel Mouse

0

100

200

300

400Control

100X10X1X

Figure 4. The mean time (sec) spent with novel mouse 1 and novel mouse 2 forthe male Control, 1X, 10X, and 100X groups. Error bars represent one standarderror from the mean and an asterisk denotes significance (p<0.05). Unpairedt-tests showed no difference in time spent with novel mouse 1 and novel mouse 2in the control, 1X, and 100X groups, p=0.8289, p=0.1605 and p=0.7209,respectively. There was a significant difference between time spent with novelmouse 1 and novel mouse 2 in the 10X group, p=0.0040.

*

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)

Novel Mouse 1

Novel Mouse 2

Novel Mouse 1

Novel Mouse 2

Novel Mouse 1

Novel Mouse 2

Novel Mouse 1

Novel Mouse 2

0

100

200

300

400Control1X10X100X

Male Preference for SocialNovelty Times

Figure 3. The mean time (sec) spent with novel mouse 1 and novel mouse 2 forthe male Control, 1X, 10X, and 100X groups. Error bars represent one standarderror from the mean and the asterisk denotes significance (p<0.05). Unpaired t-tests showed no difference in time spent with novel mouse 1 and novel mouse 2in the control, 1X, and 100X groups, p=0. 1750, p=0.7081, and p=0.2701,respectively. There was a significant difference between time spent with novelmouse 1 and novel mouse 2 in the 10X group, p=0.0032.

*

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)

Female Preference for SocialNovelty Sniff Times

0

20

40

60

80Control1X10X100X

Figure 7. The mean time (sec) spent sniffing novel mouse 1 and novel mouse 2 ofmale mice in Control, 1X, 10X, 100X groups. Error bars represent one standarderror from the mean and astericks denotes signifcant differences (p<0.05). Unpairedt-tests showed no significant differences between the sniff time of novel mouse 1 andnovel mouse 2 for the Control,10X, and 100X, p=0.8475, p=0.3823and p=0.5328,respectively. There was a significant difference between the 1X sniffing time of novelmouse 1 and novel mouse 2, p=0.0207.

*

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)

Left Chamber

Right ChamberLeft Chamber

Right Chamber

Novel Mouse 1Novel Mouse 2

Male Preference for SocialNovelty Sniff Times

Novel M

ouse 1

Novel M

ouse 2

Novel M

ouse 1

Novel M

ouse 2

Novel M

ouse 1

Novel M

ouse 2

Novel M

ouse 1

Novel M

ouse 2

0

50

100

150

200Control

10X

100X

1X

Figure 6. The mean time (sec) spent sniffing novel mouse 1 and novelmouse 2 of male mice in Control, 1X, 10X, 100X groups. Error barsrepresent one standard error from the mean. Unpaired t- tests showedno significant differences (p<0.05) between the sniff time of novel mouse1 and novel mouse 2 for the Control, 1X, 10X, and 100X, p=0.6556,p=0.2864. p=0.5264, and p=0.4515, respectively.

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)

Female Socialization Times

Novel Mouse

Empty

cham

ber

Novel Mouse

Empty

Cham

ber

Novel Mouse

Empty

Cham

ber

Novel Mouse

Empty

Cham

ber

0

100

200

300

400

1X10X100X

Control

Figure 2. Mean times (sec) spent with the novel mouse vs the empty chamberof the female mouse during Socialization in Control, 1X, 10X, and 100Xgroups. Error bars represent one standard error from the mean and theasterisks denote a significant difference between the groups (p<0.05).Unpaired t-tests showed the p values for the control, 1X, 10X, and 100X werep=0. 0122, p=0.0239, p=0.0131, and p<0.0001, respectively.

* * * *

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)

Novel m

ouse

Empty

Cham

ber

Novel M

ouse

Empty

Cham

ber

Novel M

ouse

Empty

Cham

ber

Novel M

ouse

Empty

Cham

ber0

100

200

300

400

1X

10X100X

Control

Male Socialization Times

Figure 1. Mean times (sec) spent with the novel mouse vs the empty chamber ofthe male mouse during Socialization in Control, 1X, 10X, and 100X groups.Error bars represent one standard error from the mean and the asterisks denotea significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). Upaired t-tests showed thep values for the Control, 1X, 10X, and 100X are p=0.9866, p=0.0163, p=0.0276,and p=0.0020, respectively.

* * *

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)

Control 1X 10

X10

0X

Control 1X 10

X10

0X0

20

40

60

80

FemaleMale

Male and Female SocializationSniff Times

Figure 5. The mean times (sec) spent sniffing novel mouse 1 for both the male and femalemice groups. Error bars represent one standard error from the mean. ANOVA tests showedno significant difference (p<0.05) between the control group and the male experimental groupsp=0.5400 and the control and female experimental groups p=0.1366.

Tim

e (s

eco

nd

s)