Figure 2
From: Rapid and reversible impairment of episodic memory by a high-fat diet in mice
Behavioural memory task results. (A) Object-Place-Context (OPC) task. Linear mixed model for repeated measures (LMMRM) showed an effect of diet (F(2, 125.263) = 14.821, p < 0.001), time (F(7,196.519) = 2.451, p = 0.02) and no interaction (F(10,201.976) = 0.767, p = 0.66). HFD mice performed significantly worse than LFD mice on all days tested. HFDR mice performed significantly better than HFD mice on days 11 and 13. (B) Object-Place (OP) task. LMMRM showed an effect of diet (F(2,161.124) = 10.315, p < 0.001), not time (F(7,275.612) = 0.668, p = 0.699) and no interaction (F(10, 270.500) = 1.319, p = 0.220). HFD mice performed significantly worse than LFD mice on all days tested except days 9 and 11. HFDR mice performed significantly better than HFD mice on day 15. (C) Object-Context (OC) task. LMMRM showed an effect of diet (F(2, 135.472) = 9.219, p < 0.001), not time (F(7, 209.121) = 0.312, p = 0.948) and no interaction (F(10, 229.941) = 0.427, p = 0.932). HFD mice performed significantly worse than LFD mice on all days tested except days 10 and 14. HFDR mice performed significantly better than HFD mice on day 12. (D) Novel Object Recognition (NOR) task. Linear mixed model for repeated measures showed no effect of diet (F(2,177.697) = 1.379, p = 0.255), an effect of time (F(7,257.597) = 2.253, p = 0.031) and no interaction (F(10,252.918) = 1.650, p = 0.093). All data are mean ± SEM. LFD vs. HFD *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; HFD vs. HFDR #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001. LFD group n = 24, HFD group n = 24 until day 8 where group was split into HFD n = 12 and HFDR group n = 12. Dashed lines indicate the day of diet change but are slightly offset to avoid overlying data points. Low-fat diet (LFD), high-fat diet (HFD), high-fat diet recovery (HFDR) and linear mixed model for repeated measures (LMMRM).
