Correspondence to: u.mueller@urz.uni-hd.de
Correction to: The EMBO Journal (2011) 30, 2266–2280. doi:10.1038/emboj.2011.119
Since the publication of this paper, the authors have noticed an error in the labelling of the x-axis in Figure 7C. The correct figure is shown here.
Figure 7.
APPsα-DM mice show strong deficits in hippocampus-dependent learning and memory. (A) T-maze spontaneous alternation. % Alternations in six trials of task, chance level 50%. APPsα-DM mice showed less alternation than APLP2-KO mice (genotype F(1,20)=17.4 P<0.0005; one sample t-test versus 50%: APLP2-KO t(13)=14.0 P<0.0001, APPsα-DM t(9)=3.9 P<0.0038). APPsα-DM n=10, APLP2-KO n=14; graphs represent data pooled from two independent cohorts of female mice tested independently. (B) Radial-maze working memory (WM) errors by time. APLP2-KO control mice learned the test well, making less than two errors per trial at the end of training. APPsα-DM performed significantly worse, making on average 10 errors per trial at the beginning as well as at the end of training (genotype F(1,7)=8.0 P<0.0256, time F(2,14)=3.4 P<0.0642, time × genotype F(2,14)=2.2 ns; time split by genotype: APPsα-DM F(2,6)=1.1 ns, APLP2-KO F(2,8)=6.9 P<0.0179). APPsα-DM n=4, APLP2-KO n=5, all males. (C) Radial-maze, WM errors by bait. Working memory errors made before collection of baits 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8; averaged across trials. In both groups, the number of errors increased with the number of baits already collected, reflecting the increasing difficulty and challenge of working memory. In APPsα-DM, this increase was significantly steeper (genotype F(1,7)=11.3 P<0.0121, bait F(3,21)=89.9 P<0.0001, bait × genotype F(3,21)=11.3 P<0.0001). APPsα-DM n=4, APLP2-KO n=5, all males. (D) IC corner preference learning. Visits to the target corner during acquisition (sessions 1–2, 2–13, 13–14) and reversal (sessions 1–2, 3–7, 8–9), chance=25% (dashed line). APPsα-DM preferred the target corner more strongly than APLP2-KO mice during acquisition were impaired at the beginning of reversal but were better at the end of the reversal (genotype F(1,18)=7.0 P<0.0162, phase × genotype F(1,18)=31.7 P<0.0001, time F(2,36)=430.9 P<0.0001, time × genotype F(2,36)=2.5 P<0.0928, time × phase × genotype F(2,36)=12.5 P<0.0001). APPsα-DM n=9, APLP2-KO n=13, all females. (E) IC patrolling task. Correct visits during sessions 1–2, 3–12, and 13–14. APPsα-DM showed strongly impaired learning (genotype F(1,20)=13.9 P<0.0013, time F(2,40)=100.9 P<0.0001, time × genotype F(2,40)=5.6 P<0.0072). APPsα-DM n=9, APLP2-KO n=13, all females. ***P<0.001, **P<0.01, *P<0.05.