Cited by 88Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

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

Whyte, Lauren S., Hemsley, Kim M., Lau, Adeline A., Hassiotis, Sofia, Saito, Takashi, Saido, Takaomi C., Hopwood, John J., Sargeant, Timothy J.·2018·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

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 NL-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 App NL-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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.006

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whyte, L. S., Hemsley, K. M., Lau, A. A., Hassiotis, S., Saito, T., Saido, T. C., Hopwood, J. J., & Sargeant, T. J.
Affiliations
  • South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • RIKEN Center for Brain Science (JP)
Corresponding author
Sargeant, Timothy J.
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
336
Pages
177-181
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2752717680
Cited by
88
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, amyloid plaques, open field behavior, locomotor activity, exploratory behavior, memory impairment, working memory, novel object recognition, Morris water maze, behavioral phenotypes, amyloid precursor protein
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Brain, Disease Models, Animal, Exploratory Behavior, Male, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Amyloid beta-Protein Precursor, Maze Learning, Mice, Gene Knock-In Techniques, Plaque, Amyloid, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review