Figure 2

JQ1 rescues cognitive and electrophysiological deficits in 8-month-old APP/PS1–21 animals. (a) Escape latency curve in the MWM for wild-type vehicle, APP vehicle and APP-JQ1 animals. *P<0.05, repeated measures ANOVA wild-type vehicle vs APP vehicle; F (1, 16)=5.555; n=9 (wild-type vehicle); 9 (APP vehicle); 7 (APP JQ1). (b) (left panel) The percentage of time spent in the target area of the platform is significantly decreased in APP vs wild-type animals and rescued in APP-JQ1 animals. *P<0.05, two-tailed Student’s t-test. n=9 (wild-type vehicle); 9 (APP vehicle); 7 (APP JQ1). Right panel: heatmap occupancy plots representing the probe test for wild-type and APP animals. Brighter colors indicate higher occupancy. (c) The percentage of time spent in the target quadrant was significantly increased in APP vehicle vs APP-JQ1 animals. Wild-type animals also showed borderline significant preference for the target over the rest of the pool at an alpha level of 0.1, whereas APP-vehicle animals did not. APP-JQ1 animals showed a clear preference for the target quadrant. *P<0.05, two-tailed Student’s t-test. n=9 (wild-type vehicle); 9 (APP vehicle); 7 (APP JQ1). (d) LTP was enhanced in wild-type slices, reduced in APP-vehicle animals and rescued in APP animals by bath application of JQ1. *P<0.05, repeated measures ANOVA, wild-type vehicle vs wild-type JQ1. F (1, 13)=5.789. n=7 slices, 5 animals (wild-type vehicle); n=9 slices, 5 animals. **P<0.01, repeated measures ANOVA, wild-type vehicle vs APP vehicle. F (1, 9)=12.76. n=7 slices, 5 animals (wild-type vehicle); n=5 slices, 3 animals (APP vehicle). APP vehicle vs APP JQ1 comparison: P<0.05, F (1, 8)=8.902; n=5 slices, 3 animals (APP vehicle); n=5 slices, 3 animals (APP JQ1). Error bars indicate s.e.m. EPSP, excitatory postsynaptic potential; MWM, Morris Water Maze.