30, P < 0.0001; treatment × trial interaction, F3, 45 = 9.9, P < 0.0001). Both the trial effect and treatment × trial interaction of the escape distance were significant (data not shown). The savings between the first and second trials (T1-T2 savings) and the first and fourth trials (T1-T4
savings) were Selleck LY2835219 significantly lower in scopolamine-treated versus vehicle-treated mice (Fig. 6; P = 0.0019 for T1-T2 savings and P = 0.0003 for T1-T4 savings). Figure 6 Delayed-matching-to-place dry maze. (a) On a circular platform, mice were given four trials over four to five days to find an escape box along three rings of escape holes. (b) Scopolamine-treated mice showed a significantly Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical altered escape latency to find … Thy1-hAPPLond/Swe+ mice exhibited a deficit in acquisition of the DMP dry maze task compared to control mice as supported by a significant trial effect on escape latency in combination with significant genotype × trial interaction (Fig. 6e and f; effect of genotype, F1, 18 = 15.72, P = 0.0009; effect of trial, F19, 342 = 14.08, P < 0.0001; genotype × trial interaction, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical F19, 342 = 2.49, P = 0.0006). Calculation of the trial average of escape latencies revealed the same overall effect (Fig.
6g; effect of genotype, F1, 18 = 14.57, P = 0.0013; effect of trial, F3, 54 = 34.06, P < 0.0001; genotype × trial interaction, F3, 45 = 3.93, P = 0.01). A similar trend (but not statistically significant) Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical was detected in both the trial effect and genotype × trial interaction of the escape distances (data not shown). Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical The T1-T2 savings was significantly lower in the Thy1-hAPPLond/Swe+ mice than in their control littermates (Fig. 6h; P = 0.037). A trend in the same direction was found for the T1-T4 savings (Fig. 6i; P = 0.053). Fear conditioning Tone-cued and contextual FC was used for evaluation of conditional learning
Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and memory. Both genotypes acquired the task equally well as shown by a significant time effect on freezing and a lack of a genotype × time interaction (Fig. 7a; effect of genotype, F1, 21 = 3.73, P = 0.067; effect of time F5, 105 = 54.76, P < 0.0001; genotype × time is interaction, F5, 105 = 1.00, P = 0.42). For tone freezing, we found a significant time effect but no significant genotype × time effect (Fig. 7b; effect of genotype, F1, 21 = 4.92, P = 0.038; effect of ITIs F4, 84 = 28.13, P < 0.0001; genotype × ITIs is interaction, F4, 84 = 1.64, P = 0.17). Still, a significant overall genotype effect has to be accounted from for. In the tone-cued FC test in a novel context, no differences were revealed between genotypes (Fig. 7c; P = 0.735). Importantly, freezing during the tone presentation on day 2 was not lower in mutant mice than control mice (data not shown). However, Thy1-hAPPLond/Swe+ mice showed a significant deficit in the contextual memory retrieval test as shown by a significantly decreased freezing behavior (Fig. 7b; P = 0.006). Figure 7 Fear conditioning (FC).