other · Figshare · 2015
Behavioral analysis.
S. Prasad Gabbita (803493), Ming F. Johnson (315757), Naomi Kobritz (803494), Pirooz Eslami (803495), Aleksandra Poteshkina (803496), Sridhar Varadarajan (803497), John Turman (803498), Frank Zemlan (803499), Marni E. Harris-White (803500)
Cited by 0Open access
Abstract
<p>Barnes maze testing was used to longitudinally examine the effects of IDT on learning and memory at 11.5 months (A-C) and 16 months (D-F) of age. Four days of training was followed 48 hrs later by a retention probe trial. There were no significant differences in average speed at either time point examined (A/D). At 11.5 months of age, all treatment groups were able to learn the location of the escape hole (B). Repeated measures two-way ANOVA of the acquisition phase revealed a significant effect of time (F<sub>3, 195</sub> = 17.06, P < 0.001) and treatment (F<sub>4, 195</sub> = 7.8, P < 0.001). NonTg mice performed significantly better than Con 3xTgAD mice (*p< 0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001). One-way ANOVA of the 48 hr retention probe trial (C) revealed a significant treatment effect on memory retention (F<sub>4, 71</sub> = 6.184, P < 0.0001). Low IDT treatment significantly improved spatial memory retention compared to Con 3xTgAD mice (*p < 0.05). NonTg performance on the probe trial was also significantly improved from Con 3xTgAD mice (***p < 0.001). Data represent mean ± SEM of n = 14-15/group. At 16 months of age, all treatment groups were again able to learn the location of the escape hole. Repeated measure two-way ANOVA of the acquisition phase (E) revealed a significant effect of time (F<sub>3, 126</sub> = 17.06, P < 0.001) and treatment (F<sub>4, 126</sub> = 11.65, P < 0.001). The interaction of Time x Treatment was significant (F<sub>12, 126</sub> = 3.18, P = 0.005). NonTg and IDT treated mice had improved performance compared to Con 3xTgAD mice (*p< 0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001). One-way ANOVA of the 48 hr retention probe trial (F) revealed a significant treatment effect on memory retention (F<sub>4, 43</sub> = 4.538, P = 0.0042). NonTg and Low IDT mice performed significantly better on the spatial memory retention trial compared to Con 3xTgAD mice (*p < 0.05) with Med IDT mice also showing improved performance. Data represent mean ± SEM of n = 6-14/group. (G) Nesting behavior. Mice were given nesting materials and 24 hrs to build a nest. Nests were scored on a scale from 0–5. All IDT doses improved scores vs. Con 3xTgAD mice (***p < 0.001). Data represent mean ± SEM of n = 12–14/group.</p>
Cite this paper
(803493), S. P. G., (315757), M. F. J., (803494), N. K., (803495), P. E., (803496), A. P., (803497), S. V., (803498), J. T., (803499), F. Z., & (803500), M. E. H.-W. (2015). Behavioral analysis. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137305.g003
(803493), S. Prasad Gabbita, et al. “Behavioral analysis.” Figshare, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137305.g003.
(803493), S. Prasad Gabbita, Ming F. Johnson (315757), Naomi Kobritz (803494), Pirooz Eslami (803495), Aleksandra Poteshkina (803496), Sridhar Varadarajan (803497), John Turman (803498), Frank Zemlan (803499), and Marni E. Harris-White (803500). 2015. “Behavioral analysis.” Figshare. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137305.g003.
(803493), S.P.G. et al. (2015) ‘Behavioral analysis’, Figshare. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137305.g003.
@misc{8034932015behavioral,
title = {{Behavioral analysis.}},
author = {(803493), S. Prasad Gabbita and (315757), Ming F. Johnson and (803494), Naomi Kobritz and (803495), Pirooz Eslami and (803496), Aleksandra Poteshkina and (803497), Sridhar Varadarajan and (803498), John Turman and (803499), Frank Zemlan and (803500), Marni E. Harris-White},
journal = {Figshare},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0137305.g003}
}Made from the index record. Check names, capitalisation and page numbers against the paper. Need another style? AI for Research has over 10,000.