4.6 Article

Reduction in open field activity in the absence of memory deficits in the AppNL-G-F knock-in mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 336, Issue -, Pages 177-181

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.006

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; open field; Y-maze; Morris water maze; novel object recognition test; App(NL-G-F)

Funding

  1. Australian Rotary Health/Rotary Club of Adelaide Funding Partner Scholarship
  2. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  3. Lysosomal Diseases Research Unit, Nutrition and Metabolism Theme, SAHMRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recent development of knock-in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease provides distinct advantages over traditional transgenic mouse models that rely on over-expression of amyloid precursor protein. Two such knock in models that have recently been widely adopted by Alzheimer's researchers are the App(N-F) and App(NL-G-F) mice. This study aimed to further characterise the behavioural phenotype and amyloid plaque distribution of App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) (C57BL/6J background) mice at six-months of age. An attempt to replicate a previous study that observed deficits in working memory in the Y-maze, showed no difference between App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) and wild-type mice. Further assessment of these mice using the novel object recognition test and Morris water maze also revealed no differences between AppNL-G-F/NL-G-F and wild-type mice. Despite a lack of demonstrated cognitive deficits, we report a reduction in locomotor/exploratory activity in an open field. Histological examination of App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) mice showed widespread distribution of amyloid plaques at this age. We conclude that whilst at six-months of age, memory deficits are not sufficiently robust to be replicated in varying environments, amyloid plaque burden is significant in App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) knock-in brain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available