Fig. 1

Fmr1 KO mice have similar olfactory learning capabilities compared to WT mice but show a higher detection threshold for nonane. (A) Diagram of the go-no go behavioral task. Once the animal placed its snout in the odor port the olfactory stimulus was delivered for two seconds. The animal was required to stay at least for 500ms in the odor port after the stimulus was delivered for a trial to be considered as valid. If the animal licked a water tube during CS + presentation, water was delivered as a reward. (B) Behavioral responses to isoamyl acetate (CS+) vs. mineral oil (CS-). WT and Fmr1 KO mice show similar olfactory learning. Mice who did not reach criterium on the first day repeated the test the following day (Fig. S1). (C) Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. The ROC graph depicts relative tradeoffs between benefits (true positives: TP, licking to CS+) and costs (false positives: FP, licking to CS-). The diagonal (blue dotted line) represents random behavior, and the bigger the area under the curve (AUC-ROC) the better the classifier. (D) AUC-ROC summary of the first and last 60 trials of the isoamyl acetate vs. mineral oil task. (E) Behavioral responses to phenyl acetate vs. 2-butanone. On the first day, phenyl acetate served as the CS + and 2-butanone as the CS-. The following day, the hedonic values of the two odorants were reversed. In B and E, shaded area represents mean ± standard deviation (SD). In D, bars represent the standard error (SEM; *p < 0,05, **p < 0,01, ***p < 0,001, ****p < 0,0001)