The percentage of freezing displayed in cued sessions was then analyzed by a three-way MANOVA (genotype × treatment × sex). Multivariate analysis showed general effects of the genotype [F(6, 352) = 9.450, p < 0.001] and the BDE-209 treatment [F(6, 352) = 3.069, p = 0.006], as well as a genotype × treatment interaction [F(12, 531) = 3.433, p b 0.001]. Univariate analyses showed a significant effect of the genotype on the percentage of freezing in the presence of the tone cue [F(2, 194) = 7.607, p = 0.001]. ApoE4 mice displayed higher freezing in all conditions than apoE2 and apoE3mice, as revealed by multiple comparisons (Fig. 9). The effects of the BDE-209 treatment [F(2, 194) =8.948, p < 0.001] and the interaction (genotype × treatment) [F(2, 194) = 8.936, p < 0.001] were observed exclusively in the percentage of freezing during the presence of the tone cue. To explore this interaction we used a one-way ANOVA (treatment) in each genotype separately. A significant effect of BDE-209 treatment was observed in apoE2 and apoE3 mice [F (2, 67) = 20.753, p < 0.001; F(2,63) = 4.737, p = 0.012] (Fig. 9). Multiple comparisons showed less freezing in apoE3 exposed to both doses of BDE-209 than in apoE3 control, and less freezing in apoE2 mice exposed to 30 mg/kg than in apoE2 control and exposed to the low dose of BDE-209. No differences were observed between control and BDE-209 treated apoE4 mice during the tone cue presentation (Fig. 9c).

apoE2 mouse

HAWC