$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
A total of four different experiments were performed using the chronic social defeat stress model in adolescent C57BL/6 male mice (PND 21). However, this model presented important limitations for its use in early adolescent C57BL/6 mice.
Equipment required modifications for adolescent C57BL/6 mice
The first limitation was that the equipment used for the social defeat apparatus was designed for adult mice. Because of their size, adolescent C57BL/6 mice at PND 21 were able to pass through the perforations of the dividers to the aggressor side. This interrupted the period of sensory contact. Additionally, adolescent mice were able to escape through the bars of the steel-wire tops. Therefore, the equipment was modified to prevent the mice's escape (Figure 1). The diameter of the perforations was changed from 1.1 cm to 0.6 cm (Figure 1B), and the steel-wire top was replaced from one that had 1.1 cm separation between bars to one with 0.6 cm separation (Figure 1C). Additionally, the top was secured with clips, and the rat cages were also covered with plastic covers without protective cotton. The woodchip bedding was also set at an appropriate level for the adolescent mice (Figure 1D-F).
AcSD model requires priming of adult male CD-1 mice to ensure consistent, aggressive bouts
The second and more important limitation was the lack of consistency in CD-1 mice's physical aggression toward the adolescent mice. During the chronic social defeat sessions, the aggression varied from zero aggressive attacks during the 10 min session to one or two bites that were fatal due to the small size of the adolescent mice. However, if the CD-1 mice were used for more than one experiment, the consistency in the number of attacks increased.
Figure 2B shows the number of attacks by day for each chronic social defeat experimental cohort (P0, A0, A1, and A2). An interaction was found between day and cohort (Figure 2B, two-way repeated measures ANOVA: F(27, 234) = 3.83, p < 0.0001), main effect of day (F(6.288, 163.5) = 6.2, p < 0.0001), and main effect of cohort (F(3, 26) = 3.8, p = 0.02). Post hoc test revealed differences between cohorts in days 1, 2, 3, and 7 (Holm-Sidak post hoc tests: day 1, P0 vs. A2, p = 0.02; A1 vs. A2, p = 0.02; day 2, A1 vs. A2, p = 0.04; day, 3 A0 vs. A1, p = 0.007; A1 vs. A2, p = 0.04; day 7, A0 vs. A1, p = 0.04). All CD-1 mice in experiments P0 and A0 stopped attacking in the last 3 days. CD-1 mice that were used for experiments P0 and A0 were used in A1, in which there was a consistency in attacks (Figure 2B), indicating that the CD-1 were more prone to aggression if subjected to physical interactions before.
For this reason, as described in steps 2.1 and 2.2, the CD-1 mice were screened specifically for their aggression towards the adolescent mice and primed with an adult C57BL/6 male for aggression towards the adolescent C57BL/6 mice. Furthermore, AcSD was used to increase the age from PND 21 to PND 25 and still target early adolescence.
During the AcSD sessions, CD-1 mice increased the number of attacks towards the adolescent mice in a more consistent pattern as shown in Figure 2D. In contrast to the chronic social defeat paradigm, no significant interaction was found between the session and experimental cohort (Figure 2D, two-way repeated measures ANOVA: F(35, 483) = 1.33, p = 0.1), there was a main effect of session (F(5.644, 389.5) = 14.15, p < 0.0001) and a main effect of cohort (F(5, 69) = 7.91, p < 0.0001); Holm-Sidak post hoc test did not reveal significant differences between cohorts. A comparison of the averages of attacks between cohorts revealed that this effect was mostly driven by cohort A7, which had a significantly higher number of attacks (data not shown, one-way ANOVA F(5, 69) = 7.911, p < 0.0001; Holm-Sidak post hoc tests: A3 vs. A6, p = 0.04; A7 vs. A5, p = 0.002; A7 vs. A6, p < 0.0001; A7 vs. A8, p = 0.0001).
Adolescent mice received more attacks with primed CD-1 mice during AcSD than adolescent mice exposed to a chronic social defeat protocol (Figure 2E, unpaired t-test with Welch's correction, t = 15.40, df = 17.87, p < 0.0001) using naïve (non-primed) CD-1 mice. The attacks were not consistent during the chronic social defeat protocol, and in fact, several experimental mice were not attacked at all.

Figure 2: Comparison of number of attacks per day between chronic social defeat stress and AcSD. (A) Timeline of the chronic social defeat stress model. (B) Number of attacks per day for each experimental cohort (P0, P1, A1, and A2) during chronic social defeat stress in adolescent C57BL/6 male mice (two-way repeated measures ANOVA). (C) Timeline of the accelerated social defeat stress (AcSD) model. (D) Number of attacks per day for each experimental cohort (A3-A8) during AcSD in adolescent C57BL/6 male mice (two-way repeated measures ANOVA). (E) The average number of attacks was significantly higher for AcSD (unpaired t test with Welch's correction, ****p < 0.0001). All data are shown as mean ± SEM. Abbreviations: CSDS = chronic social defeat stress; SIT = social interaction test; PND = postnatal day; P0, A0-A8 = labels for each experimental cohort. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Pattern of attacks during AcSD sessions does not impact social phenotype 24 h later
After social defeat stress exposure, most adolescent male mice did not show social avoidance when tested in the SIT (Figure 3B, chronic social defeat: one-way ANOVA F(2, 43) = 14.57, p < 0.0001. F, AcSD: Kruskal-Wallis test, H(2) = 72.35, p < 0.0001). For both models, there were no significant differences in the number of attacks between social-avoidant and non-social-avoidant defeated mice (Figure 3D, chronic social defeat: two-way repeated measures ANOVA, F(9, 252) = 4.07, p = 0.21. H. AcSD: two-way repeated measures ANOVA, F(7, 511) = 1.32, p = 0.24). However, the proportion of resilient mice was higher following chronic social defeat than that following AcSD exposure (Figure 3C,G, 70 % vs 55.26 %, binomial test (one-tailed), p = 0.0047).

Figure 3: Comparison of social interaction test (SIT) scores following the chronic social defeat stress and the AcSD paradigms. (A) Timeline of the chronic social defeat stress model. (B) Distribution of SIT score after chronic social defeat stress in adolescence (one-way ANOVA). (C) Proportion of resilient/susceptible after chronic social defeat stress in adolescence. (D) Number of attacks by phenotype received during chronic social defeat stress, no significant differences between resilient and susceptible were found (two-way repeated measures ANOVA). (E) Timeline of the accelerated social defeat stress (AcSD) model. (F) Distribution of SIT score after AcSD in adolescence (Kruskal-Wallis). This figure has been modified from57. (G) The proportion of resilient/susceptible after AcSD in adolescence. This figure has been modified from57. (H) Number of attacks by phenotype received during AcSD; there is no difference between resilient and susceptible (two-way repeated measures ANOVA). This figure has been modified from59. **p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. All data are shown as mean ± SEM. Abbreviations: PND = postnatal day; Con = controls; Res = resilient; Sus = susceptible. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
AcSD can be used in adolescent C57BL/6 female mice
Because PND 25 C57BL/6 male and female mice have not reached reproductive maturity, primed CD-1 mice could present aggressive attacks toward adolescent female mice as they did towards adolescent male mice. However, the priming phase had to be extended to reach a consistent number of attacks (Figure 4A). As shown in Figure 4B, no interaction was found between day and cohort across experiments (Figure 4B, two-way repeated measures ANOVA: F(35,707) = 1.38, p = 0.07), there was a main effect of the session (F(6.286, 634.9) = 16.1, p < 0.0001) and a main effect of the cohort (F(5, 101) = 11.34, p < 0.0001; Holm-Sidak post hoc tests: session 2 C4 vs C8, p = 0.03; session 6 C7 vs C4, p = 0.02; C7 vs C5, p = 0.02; session 7 C8 vs C3, p = 0.02; C8 vs C4, p = 0.045). The majority of adolescent C57BL/6 female mice exposed to AcSD were resilient to social avoidance (Figure 4C, Brown-Forsythe's ANOVA: F(2,113.4) = 27.2, p < 0.0001), similar to adolescent male mice. No significant difference was found in the number of attacks between resilient and susceptible mice (Figure 4E, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, session x phenotype interaction: F(7, 714) = 0.73, p = 0.64, main effect of session F(6.375, 650.3) = 7.02, p < 0.0001, no main effect of phenotype F(1, 102) = 0.4, p = 0.53).

Figure 4: AcSD in adolescent female mice. (A) Timeline of the experiment. (B) Number of attacks per day by experiment during AcSD (two-way repeated measures ANOVA). (C) Distribution of SIT score after AcSD during adolescence in female mice (Brown-Forsythe's ANOVA). (D) Proportion of resilient/susceptible after AcSD in adolescence (right). (E) Number of attacks by phenotype received during AcSD; no significant differences between resilient and susceptible mice were found (two-way repeated measures ANOVA). All data are shown as mean ± SEM. (C-E) These figures have been modified from59. Abbreviations: SIT = social interaction test; PND = postnatal day; C3-C8 = labels for each experimental cohort; Con = controls; Res = resilient; Sus = susceptible. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Table 1: Scoring sheet template for day 1 of screening with adults. Abbreviations: CD-1 = ID of CD-1 mice screened, Exp = Experiment ID, 3 min = Duration of the screening session for the C57BL/6 adult mice, BL6 ID = ID of C57BL/6 adult mice used for screening, Lat 1 ADULTS = Latency of the first attack from the CD-1 towards the C57BL/6 adult mouse, # aggressions = Number of attacks performed by the CD-1. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 2: Scoring sheet template for the screening with adults and adolescents. Abbreviations: Exp = Experiment ID, 1 min = Duration of the screening session for the C57BL/6 adult mice, BL6 ID = ID of C57BL/6 adult mice used for screening, Lat 1 ADULTS = Latency of the first attack from the CD-1 towards the C57BL/6 adult mouse, # aggressions = Number of attacks performed by the CD-1, 5 min = Duration of the screening session for the C57BL/6 adolescent mice, BL6 Ad = ID of C57BL/6 adolescent mice used for screening, Lat 1 Adolescents = Latency of the first attack from the CD-1 towards the C57BL/6 adolescent mouse, CD-1 = ID of CD-1 mice screened. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 3: Scoring sheet template for the priming phase. Abbreviations: CD-1 = ID of CD-1 mice used for priming, Exp = Experiment ID, 30 sec = Duration of the priming session for the C57BL/6 adult mice, BL6 ID = ID of C57BL/6 adult mice used for priming, Lat 1 ADULTS = Latency of the first attack from the CD-1 towards the C57BL/6 adult mouse, # aggressions = Number of attacks performed by the CD-1, Min: 3 = Duration of the priming session for the C57BL/6 adolescent mice, BL6 Ad = ID of C57BL/6 adolescent mice used for priming, Lat 1 Adolescents = Latency of the first attack from the CD-1 towards the C57BL/6 adolescent mouse, # mountings = Number of mountings received by the C57BL/6 adolescent mice. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 4: Scoring sheet template for social defeat scheduling (20 adolescent mice). Abbreviations: CD1 = ID of CD-1 mice, E = Experiment, H = Humidity, 1 st = Session 1, 2nd = Session 2, BL6 adult = ID of C57BL/6 adult mice used for priming, Weight = Weight of C57BL/6 adolescent mice, # attacks = Number of attacks performed by the CD-1, # wounds = Number of wounds received by the C57BL/6 adolescent mice. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 5: Example of social defeat scheduling. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 6: Template for injury monitoring of adult C57BL/6 male mice. Abbreviations: 1st - # wounds = Number of wounds received by the C57BL/6 adult mouse in session 1, 2nd - # wounds = Number of wounds received by the C57BL/6 adult mouse in session 2, BL6 = ID of C57BL/6 adult mice used for priming. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 7: Control group scheduling template (10 adolescent mice). Rules for scrambling: Do not repeat the same conspecific; a mouse cannot repeat the same side of the box in the same day; mice have to be scrambled with mice from different cages from their home cage; home cages are numbered; mice numbers are given depending on the home cage number; defeated and controls groups are taken randomly from the home cage. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 8: Example of the control group scheduling. Please click here to download this Table.