Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 16;38(5):817–825. doi: 10.1038/npp.2012.247

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Aβ25–35-induced learning deficits in PLTP-KO mice: dose–response study in (a, b) the spontaneous alternation test and (c, d) novel object recognition test. WT and PLTP-KO mice received an i.c.v. injection of sterile water (V) or Aβ25–35, at 1, 3, or 9 nmol). After 7 days, mice were examined in the Y maze: (a) spontaneous alternation and (b) number of arm entries. At days 8–10, they were tested in the object recognition test: (c) session 1 and (d) session 2. White bars: WT mice, black bars: PLTP-KO mice. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post-test in panels (a) and (b) (n=8–16): F(3,98)=10.3, P<0.001 for treatment, F(1,100)=1.04, P>0.05 for genotype, F(3,98)=4.17, P<0.01 for the interaction in panel (a); F(3,98)=1.71, P>0.05 for treatment; F(1,100)=22.2, P<0.0001 for genotype; F(3,98)=0.30, P>0.05 for the interaction in panel (b). *P<0.001 vs V-treated WT group; φP<0.001 vs V-treated PLTP-KO group; #P<0.05 vs WT group (same treatment). One sample t-test in panels (c) and (d) (n=9–17): t(15)=5.87 (P<0.01 vs 50%) for WT/V, t(15)=2.23 (P<0.05 vs 50%) for WT/Aβ3, t(10)=2.89 (P<0.05 vs 50%) for KO/V in (d). °P<0.05, °°P<0.01 vs the hazard level (50%).