Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 10;5:16300. doi: 10.1038/srep16300

Figure 4. Object recognition, short retention memory test: effects of NAP and DOX.

Figure 4

(A) Animal performance in the object recognition memory test is shown (N/group indicated on the figure). Data are expressed as mean (±SEM) total time spent exploring all objects designated by relative discrimination index (D2) in Phase II that includes one object that was presented during Phase I, and one novel object. Two-way ANOVA showed no significant effect of treatment (F (3,105) = 1.103, P = 0.351) and no significant effect of genotype (F(1,105) = 0.099, P = 0.753), there was a statistically significant interaction effect between treatment and genotype (P = 0.006). Fisher’s LSD post hoc test revealed that the Tg mice under DD (vehicle) treatment showed significant deficits in recognizing the novel object and seemed to prefer the familiar object in comparison to control WT mice under DD (vehicle) treatment (***p < 0.002). NAP and RIS treatment significantly improved object recognition/discrimination in the Tg mice to a control WT level (###p < 0.001, #P = 0.043 respectively). (B) DOX treatment was ineffective, i.e. the DOX-Tg mice preferred the known/familiar object in contrast to the DOX-WT mice and the DOX-Tg group was similar to the non-DOX- treated Tg group, shown in A. (DOX-Tg vs. DOX-WT – *p < 0.05, NAP-treated DOX-Tg vs. DoX-Tg, ##p < 0.01).