Fig. 2

The behavioral performance in mice. A, D During phase 1, there was no significant difference between the two sides in all groups. B, E During phase 2, all of the mice preferred to stay with the stranger mouse. C, F During phase 3, WT + RA, SMND-309 and SMND-309 + CIH mice preferred to stay with Stranger 2 than with Stranger 1 (p < 0.05). However, WT + CIH mice spent a similar amount of time with each of the two stranger mice (p > 0.05). G The mean escape latencies of the four groups. H The total swimming distances among all groups were similar (p > 0.05). I The time the WT + CIH mice spent in the target quadrant was much shorter than the time the WT + RA mice spent (p < 0.05), and this was improved by SMND-309 treatment (p < 0.05). J WT + RA mice traveled longer distances in the target quadrant than the WT + CIH mice (p < 0.05), and after SMND-309 treatment, the damage was improved (p < 0.05). K The number of platform crossings of WT + CIH mice was less than WT + RA mice (p < 0.05), but it was improved by treating with SMND-309 (p < 0.05). L, M The fear memory was damaged by CIH exposure, and SMND-309 alleviated the damage. *p < 0.05 Stranger 1 vs. empty cage. *p < 0.05 Stranger 1 vs. Stranger 2. *p < 0.05 WT group vs. WT CIH group. **p < 0.05 WT CIH group vs. SMND-309 CIH group. N = 10 for each group. Data are shown as the mean ± SEM. The results of social tests were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and a Bonferroni test. The results of escape latency were checked by three-way mixed ANOVA. Others were measured by two-way ANOVA