Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Neurosci. 2013 Aug 11;16(9):1299–1305. doi: 10.1038/nn.3486

Figure 4. Spatial memory deficits in APP/PS1 AD model mice are alleviated by suppressing PERK/eIF2α signaling.

Figure 4

(a) Escape latency in the Morris water maze plotted against the training days. WT n=14; APP/PS1, n=14; PERK cKO, n=16; APP/PS1/PERK cKO n=11. Repeated measures ANOVA followed by a post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparison test, p= 0.0028, F(3, 54)=8.440. APP/PS1 vs WT: p<0.01, t=4.815; APP/PS1 vs APP/PS1/PERK cKO: p<0.05, t=3.671. APP/PS1 vs PERK cKO: p>0.05, t=2.806. No difference was detected among WT, PERK cKO, and APP/PS1/PERK cKO groups. Repeated measures ANOVA. P=0.09, F(2,40)=3.302. (b) Percentage of time spent in the target quadrant during a 60 second probe trial of MWM test. One-way ANOVA, p = 0.0498, F=2.869. *p< 0.05. (c) Frequency of platform crossing during a 60 second probe trial of MWM test. One-way ANOVA, p =0.0109, F=4.171.*p< 0.05. (d) Visible platform test. Repeated measures ANOVA, p= 0.0943. F=5.653. (e) Object location task. Percentage of time interacting with the object at a new location (out of total time spent with objects) was calculated as discrimination ratio. WT, n=14; APP/PS1, n=10; PERK cKO, n=8; APP/PS1/PERK cKO, n=7. Independent t-test. *p< 0.05 (f) Y water maze task. Spatial memory was measured by percentage of correct arm choice. WT, n=18; APP/PS1, n=18; PERK cKO, n=15; APP/PS1/PERK cKO, Independent t-test. n=9. *p<0.05.