Fig 2. Reducing neuronal excitability with LEV or dORKΔC rescues memory defects caused by the expression of Aβ₄₂^Arctic.

(A) Pan-neuronal expression of Aβ₄₂^Arctic reduced aversive 0-h memory, which could not be restored with LEV treatment (n ≥ 12). (B) LEV treatment does not affect flies expressing Aβ₄₂^Arctic in the MB directly after training (n ≥ 12) but (C) restored the impaired 2-h memory performance in flies expressing Aβ₄₂^Arctic in the MB (n ≥ 12). (D) Flies were fed with either 2.5 or 7.5 mg/kg LEV, and 2-h aversive memory was tested. The data for 5 mg/kg are from Fig 3C (n ≥ 12). Other LEV concentrations do not seem to improve the memory performance. (E) Flies were fed with either 7.5 or 10 mg/kg LEV, and 0-h aversive memory was tested. The data for 5 mg/kg are from Fig 3B (n ≥ 12). Higher LEV concentrations seem to have a negative effect on the flies’ ability to learn (F) Expression of the nonconducting K⁺-channel dORKΔNC or constitutive conducting dORKΔC in the MB of Aβ₄₂^Arctic -expressing flies. At 2 h after training, dORKΔC is able to partially restore the learning performance compared to dORKΔC (n ≥ 12). See S4 Fig for the further data on LEV and dORK and S1 Table for the data. All other details are similar to Fig 1. LEV, Levetiracetam; MB, mushroom body.