CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Elevation of brain magnesium prevents synaptic loss and reverses cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease mouse model

Open access
Li, Wei, Yu, Jia, Liu, Yong, Huang, Xiaojie, Abumaria, Nashat, Zhu, Ying, Huang, Xian, Xiong, Wenxiang, Ren, Chi, Liu, Xian-Guo, Chui, Dehua, Liu, Guosong·2014·Molecular Brain
DOI 10.1186/s13041-014-0065-yPMC PMC4172865
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Profound synapse loss is one of the major pathological hallmarks associated with Alzheimer's disease, which might underlie memory impairment. Our previous work demonstrates that magnesium ion is a critical factor in controlling synapse density/plasticity. Here, we tested whether elevation of brain magnesium, using a recently developed compound (magnesium-L-threonate, MgT), can ameliorate the AD-like pathologies and cognitive deficits in the APPswe/PS1dE9 mice, a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: MgT treatment reduced Aβ-plaque, prevented synapse loss and memory decline in the transgenic mice. Strikingly, MgT treatment was effective even when the treatment was given to the mice at the end-stage of their Alzheimer's disease-like pathological progression. To explore how elevation of brain magnesium ameliorates the AD-like pathologies in the brain of transgenic mice, we studied molecules critical for APP metabolism and signaling pathways implicated in synaptic plasticity/density. In the transgenic mice, the NMDAR signaling pathway was downregulated, while the BACE1 expression were upregulated. MgT treatment prevented the impairment of these signaling pathways, stabilized BACE1 expression and reduced sAPPβ and β-CTF in the transgenic mice. At the molecular level, elevation of extracellular magnesium prevented the high Aβ-induced reductions in synaptic NMDARs by preventing calcineurin overactivation in hippocampal slices. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that elevation of brain magnesium exerts substantial synaptoprotective effects in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease, and hence it might have therapeutic potential for treating Alzheimer's disease.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13041-014-0065-y

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Prevention of memory deficits in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice) by MgT treatment. (A) Escape latencies in seconds(s) during training (5 trials/day) in water maze task at 7 months of age, i.e., after 1 month of treatment. Three groups of mice were used; WT (n = 9), Tg (n = 13) and Tg + MgT (n = 9; ANOVA effect of treatment, p < 0.05). (B) Probe test conducted 24 h after the training. Top, representative path tracings. Bottom, percentage of time spent in each quadrant (ANOVA differences among quadrants; WT: p < 0.05; Tg + MgT: p < 0.0001). (C) Same as (A) and on the same mice, but tested at 15 months of age. WT (n = 9); Tg (n = 7); Tg + MgT (n = 6). ANOVA effect of treatment p < 0.05. (D) Probe test 24 h later (ANOVA differences among quadrants: WT: p < 0.0001; Tg + MgT: p < 0.0001). (E) Short-term (10 m in retention interval, left) and long-term (24 h, right) novel-object recognition memory tests performed on the same group of mice at 22 months of age. WT (n = 7), Tg (n = 6), and Tg + MgT (n = 6). Recognition index calculated as percentage of time spent exploring each object (Obj1-3). Black bars indicate novel object (Nov). ANOVA differences in recognition index of different objects in WT (STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.0001) and Tg + MgT (STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.001). Dashed lines represent chance levels of performance (25%). (F) Total magnesium (ionized and non-ionized) contents in different organs/tissues (Mgtissue) normalized to tissue weight (mg/g) in the same groups of mice. WT (n = 7), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT (n = 6). ANOVA difference among groups (brain: p < 0.0001; kidney: p < 0.01). (G) Magnesium ion concentration in the plasma ([Mg2+]plasma, mM) of WT (n = 14), Tg (n = 9) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 8) as measured by the calmagite method. ANOVA difference among groups (p < 0.01). (H) The intracellular free Mg2+ concentration in the red blood cell ([Mg2+]RBC) of WT (n = 12), Tg (n = 11) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 11) as measured by the flow cytometry method (fluorescent optical density, OD). ANOVA difference among groups (p < 0.05). ANOVA was followed by Bonfferoni’s post hoc test. (I) Brain total magnesium content (Mgbrain, mg/g), in Tg mice (23 months old), significantly correlated with the recognition index in the short-term recognition memory test (Pearson’s test). Data from Tg + MgT mice (23 months old treated for 17 months) are displayed, but were not included in the correlation analysis. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1 Prevention of memory deficits in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice) by MgT treatment. (A) Escape latencies in seconds(s) during training (5 trials/day) in water maze task at 7 months of age, i.e., after 1 month of treatment. Three groups of mice were used; WT (n = 9), Tg (n = 13) and Tg + MgT (n = 9; ANOVA effect of treatment, p < 0.05). (B) Probe test conducted 24 h after the training. Top, representative path tracings. Bottom, percentage of time spent in each quadrant (ANOVA differences among quadrants; WT: p < 0.05; Tg + MgT: p < 0.0001). (C) Same as (A) and on the same mice, but tested at 15 months of age. WT (n = 9); Tg (n = 7); Tg + MgT (n = 6). ANOVA effect of treatment p < 0.05. (D) Probe test 24 h later (ANOVA differences among quadrants: WT: p < 0.0001; Tg + MgT: p < 0.0001). (E) Short-term (10 m in retention interval, left) and long-term (24 h, right) novel-object recognition memory tests performed on the same group of mice at 22 months of age. WT (n = 7), Tg (n = 6), and Tg + MgT (n = 6). Recognition index calculated as percentage of time spent exploring each object (Obj1-3). Black bars indicate novel object (Nov). ANOVA differences in recognition index of different objects in WT (STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.0001) and Tg + MgT (STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.001). Dashed lines represent chance levels of performance (25%). (F) Total magnesium (ionized and non-ionized) contents in different organs/tissues (Mgtissue) normalized to tissue weight (mg/g) in the same groups of mice. WT (n = 7), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT (n = 6). ANOVA difference among groups (brain: p < 0.0001; kidney: p < 0.01). (G) Magnesium ion concentration in the plasma ([Mg2+]plasma, mM) of WT (n = 14), Tg (n = 9) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 8) as measured by the calmagite method. ANOVA difference among groups (p < 0.01). (H) The intracellular free Mg2+ concentration in the red blood cell ([Mg2+]RBC) of WT (n = 12), Tg (n = 11) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 11) as measured by the flow cytometry method (fluorescent optical density, OD). ANOVA difference among groups (p < 0.05). ANOVA was followed by Bonfferoni’s post hoc test. (I) Brain total magnesium content (Mgbrain, mg/g), in Tg mice (23 months old), significantly correlated with the recognition index in the short-term recognition memory test (Pearson’s test). Data from Tg + MgT mice (23 months old treated for 17 months) are displayed, but were not included in the correlation analysis. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Prevention by MgT treatment of synapse loss in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice). (A) Left: electron microscopic images showing structural synapses (blue arrows) in hippocampal outer molecular layer of dentate gyrus (DG-OML). Right: Estimated synaptic density. WT (n = 6), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT (n = 5). (B) Left: Immunostaining of synaptophysin-positive terminals (Syn Puncta) in DG-OML. Right: Quantitative analysis of Syn Puncta (n = 6/group). (C) Same as in (B) and from same groups of mice; however, puncta represent GABAergic (GAD65). (D) Input–output (normalized) relationship of hippocampal CA1 synapses in vivo (n = 6/group). Field post synaptic potentials (fPSPs) were normalized by the maximum amplitude of fPSPs. Two Way ANOVA revealed significant effects of treatment: p < 0.05; and stimulus: p < 0.0001. (E) Correlation between the density of Syn Puncta and short-term recognition memory in Tg mice (23 months old). Tg + MgT (23 months old treated for 17 months) data are displayed but were not included in the regression analysis (Pearson’s test). Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2 Prevention by MgT treatment of synapse loss in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice). (A) Left: electron microscopic images showing structural synapses (blue arrows) in hippocampal outer molecular layer of dentate gyrus (DG-OML). Right: Estimated synaptic density. WT (n = 6), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT (n = 5). (B) Left: Immunostaining of synaptophysin-positive terminals (Syn Puncta) in DG-OML. Right: Quantitative analysis of Syn Puncta (n = 6/group). (C) Same as in (B) and from same groups of mice; however, puncta represent GABAergic (GAD65). (D) Input–output (normalized) relationship of hippocampal CA1 synapses in vivo (n = 6/group). Field post synaptic potentials (fPSPs) were normalized by the maximum amplitude of fPSPs. Two Way ANOVA revealed significant effects of treatment: p < 0.05; and stimulus: p < 0.0001. (E) Correlation between the density of Syn Puncta and short-term recognition memory in Tg mice (23 months old). Tg + MgT (23 months old treated for 17 months) data are displayed but were not included in the regression analysis (Pearson’s test). Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Prevention by MgT treatment of impairment in NMDAR signaling pathway in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice). (A) Representative Western blots showing the expression levels of NR2B, pCaMKII, CaMKII, pCREB, and CREB in the hippocampus of mice sacrificed either after home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based behavioral stimulation (Stim). GAPDH expression served as loading control. (B) Left: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT, Tg and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5/group), obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression the hippocampus of WT (n = 6), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5) obtained by Western blot following behavioral stimulation. (C and D) same as (B) but quantifying Phosphorylated CaMKII (pCaMKII)/CaMKII ratio (C) and Phosphorylated CREB (pCREB)/CREB ratio (D). ANOVAs (Table 2) were followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3 Prevention by MgT treatment of impairment in NMDAR signaling pathway in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice). (A) Representative Western blots showing the expression levels of NR2B, pCaMKII, CaMKII, pCREB, and CREB in the hippocampus of mice sacrificed either after home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based behavioral stimulation (Stim). GAPDH expression served as loading control. (B) Left: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT, Tg and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5/group), obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression the hippocampus of WT (n = 6), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5) obtained by Western blot following behavioral stimulation. (C and D) same as (B) but quantifying Phosphorylated CaMKII (pCaMKII)/CaMKII ratio (C) and Phosphorylated CREB (pCREB)/CREB ratio (D). ANOVAs (Table 2) were followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Prevention of exogenous Aβ 42-induced downregulation of synaptic NMDARs by elevation of [Mg 2+ ] o . (A) Top panel: Representative traces of EPSCs recorded at membrane potentials of −70 and +50 mV at 0.8 mM [Mg2+]o (0.8-[Mg2+]o) before (black) and after (red) application of Aβ42 with (right) or without (left) the addition of calcineurin inhibitor (FK506). Middle panel: Same as above but at 1.2 mM [Mg2+]o (1.2-[Mg2+]o). Lower panel: EPSCs at 0.8 and 1.2 mM [Mg2+]o with and without Aβ42 monomers in the presence of NR2B blocker (ifenprodil). (B) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) in 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 8), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 7) and 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 + FK506 (n = 8) slices. ANOVA revealed significant difference among the groups (p < 0.0001). ANOVA was followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (C) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) in 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 8), 1.2-[Mg2+]o (green, n = 6), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + FK506 (n = 7) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + FK506 slices (n = 7). (D) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) in 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 8), 1.2-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 6), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + FK506 (n = 7) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + FK506 slices (n = 7), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 + FK506 (n = 8) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 + FK506 (n = 8). (E) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) after the addition of ifenprodil; 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 6), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 10), 1.2-[Mg2+]o (n = 8) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 12). Recordings were conducted, in vitro, using acute hippocampal slices from 4 weeks old WT mice. Unpaired t-tests, ** p < 0.01. Error bars show SEM. (F) Schematic illustration of how high Aβ impairs NMDARs and how elevation of [Mg2+]o might prevent this impairment.
Figure 4 Prevention of exogenous Aβ 42-induced downregulation of synaptic NMDARs by elevation of [Mg 2+ ] o . (A) Top panel: Representative traces of EPSCs recorded at membrane potentials of −70 and +50 mV at 0.8 mM [Mg2+]o (0.8-[Mg2+]o) before (black) and after (red) application of Aβ42 with (right) or without (left) the addition of calcineurin inhibitor (FK506). Middle panel: Same as above but at 1.2 mM [Mg2+]o (1.2-[Mg2+]o). Lower panel: EPSCs at 0.8 and 1.2 mM [Mg2+]o with and without Aβ42 monomers in the presence of NR2B blocker (ifenprodil). (B) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) in 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 8), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 7) and 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 + FK506 (n = 8) slices. ANOVA revealed significant difference among the groups (p < 0.0001). ANOVA was followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (C) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) in 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 8), 1.2-[Mg2+]o (green, n = 6), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + FK506 (n = 7) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + FK506 slices (n = 7). (D) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) in 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 8), 1.2-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 6), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + FK506 (n = 7) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + FK506 slices (n = 7), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 + FK506 (n = 8) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 + FK506 (n = 8). (E) The ratio of amplitudes of EPSCNMDAR to EPSCAMPA (INMDA/AMPA) after the addition of ifenprodil; 0.8-[Mg2+]o (n = 6), 0.8-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 10), 1.2-[Mg2+]o (n = 8) and 1.2-[Mg2+]o + Aβ42 (n = 12). Recordings were conducted, in vitro, using acute hippocampal slices from 4 weeks old WT mice. Unpaired t-tests, ** p < 0.01. Error bars show SEM. (F) Schematic illustration of how high Aβ impairs NMDARs and how elevation of [Mg2+]o might prevent this impairment.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Reductions by MgT treatment in amyloid plaques and BACE1 overexpression in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice). (A) Upper panel left: Immunostaining of hippocampal amyloid plaque of Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT (n = 5). Right: Hippocampal amyloid plaque areas were significantly lower in Tg + MgT mice. Lower panel: same as above but in the frontal cortex. Two tailed unpaired t-test, * p < 0.05. (B) Concentrations of Aβ42 (upper panel) and Aβ40 (lower panel) monomers in CSF of Tg (n = 13) and Tg + MgT (n = 15) measured by ELISA. (C) Left: Representative Western blots of BACE1 (β-secretase) expression in the hippocampus of mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim). Middle: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT, Tg and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT (n = 6), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. ANOVAs (Table 2) were followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. (D) Left: Representative Western blots of hsAPPβ expression in the hippocampus of mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim). Middle: Quantitative analysis of hsAPPβ expression in the hippocampus of Tg and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of hsAPPβ expression in the hippocampus of Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. (E) Same as (D) but for β-CTF, Tg (n = 3) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. Two tailed unpaired t-tests. Data from WT mice was displayed but not included in the analysis. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5 Reductions by MgT treatment in amyloid plaques and BACE1 overexpression in APPswe/PS1dE9 transgenic mice (Tg mice). (A) Upper panel left: Immunostaining of hippocampal amyloid plaque of Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT (n = 5). Right: Hippocampal amyloid plaque areas were significantly lower in Tg + MgT mice. Lower panel: same as above but in the frontal cortex. Two tailed unpaired t-test, * p < 0.05. (B) Concentrations of Aβ42 (upper panel) and Aβ40 (lower panel) monomers in CSF of Tg (n = 13) and Tg + MgT (n = 15) measured by ELISA. (C) Left: Representative Western blots of BACE1 (β-secretase) expression in the hippocampus of mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim). Middle: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT, Tg and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT (n = 6), Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. ANOVAs (Table 2) were followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. (D) Left: Representative Western blots of hsAPPβ expression in the hippocampus of mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim). Middle: Quantitative analysis of hsAPPβ expression in the hippocampus of Tg and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of hsAPPβ expression in the hippocampus of Tg (n = 6) and Tg + MgT mice (n = 5) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. (E) Same as (D) but for β-CTF, Tg (n = 3) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. Two tailed unpaired t-tests. Data from WT mice was displayed but not included in the analysis. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Effects of MgT treatment on expression of NR2B and BACE1 in wild type mice. (A) Left: Representative Western blots of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim.). Middle: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 6/group) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. (B) Left: Representative Western blots of BACE1 (β-secretase) expression in the hippocampus of WT mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim.). Middle: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 6/group) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. Two tailed unpaired t-test. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05.
Figure 6 Effects of MgT treatment on expression of NR2B and BACE1 in wild type mice. (A) Left: Representative Western blots of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim.). Middle: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of NR2B expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 6/group) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. (B) Left: Representative Western blots of BACE1 (β-secretase) expression in the hippocampus of WT mice sacrificed under home-cage conditions (basal) or following 24 h of environmental enrichment-based stimulation (Stim.). Middle: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 5/group) obtained by Western blot (arbitrarily units, a.u.). Mice were sacrificed under basal conditions without behavioral stimulation. Right: Quantitative analysis of BACE1 expression in the hippocampus of WT and WT + MgT mice (n = 6/group) obtained by Western blots following behavioral stimulation. Two tailed unpaired t-test. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Reversal by MgT treatment of behavioral and structural deficits in aged APPswe/PS1dE9 mice (Tg mice) and prevention of their premature death. (A) Experimental design to test whether MgT treatment can reverse behavioral deficits in aged Tg mice. (B) Recognition index of the novel object (Nov) and other familiar objects (Obj 1–3) during STM (left) and LTM (right) tests in the NORT task. WT (n = 10, ANOVA, STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.0001) and untreated Tg (n = 8). (C) Same as (B) and on the same mice but NORT tests were re-conducted after MgT treatment was given to Tg mice for 1 month. ANOVA revealed significant differences in WT (n = 8, STM: p < 0.001; LTM: p < 0.05) as well as in MgT-treated aged Tg mice (n = 7, STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.0001). Dashed lines represent chance levels of performance (25%). ANOVA was followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. (D) Nest construction social behavior in WT (n = 10) and untreated Tg mice (n = 10). (E) Same as (D) and on the same WT (n = 7) and Tg (n = 6) mice, but after MgT treatment was given to Tg for 1 month. (F) Density of synaptophysin positive terminals (Syn Puncta). Data from untreated aged Tg mice (from Figure 2B) were inserted (black bars) to show the effects of the 1 month treatment. ANOVAs (Table 2) were followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. (G) Survival curves of WT (n = 65), Tg (n = 68) and Tg + MgT (n = 76) over 678 days of lifespan (MgT treatment started at 6 months of age). Log-rank Mantel-Cox test revealed significant difference between Tg mice and WT (p < 0.05) as well as Tg + MgT (p < 0.01).
Figure 7 Reversal by MgT treatment of behavioral and structural deficits in aged APPswe/PS1dE9 mice (Tg mice) and prevention of their premature death. (A) Experimental design to test whether MgT treatment can reverse behavioral deficits in aged Tg mice. (B) Recognition index of the novel object (Nov) and other familiar objects (Obj 1–3) during STM (left) and LTM (right) tests in the NORT task. WT (n = 10, ANOVA, STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.0001) and untreated Tg (n = 8). (C) Same as (B) and on the same mice but NORT tests were re-conducted after MgT treatment was given to Tg mice for 1 month. ANOVA revealed significant differences in WT (n = 8, STM: p < 0.001; LTM: p < 0.05) as well as in MgT-treated aged Tg mice (n = 7, STM: p < 0.0001; LTM: p < 0.0001). Dashed lines represent chance levels of performance (25%). ANOVA was followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. (D) Nest construction social behavior in WT (n = 10) and untreated Tg mice (n = 10). (E) Same as (D) and on the same WT (n = 7) and Tg (n = 6) mice, but after MgT treatment was given to Tg for 1 month. (F) Density of synaptophysin positive terminals (Syn Puncta). Data from untreated aged Tg mice (from Figure 2B) were inserted (black bars) to show the effects of the 1 month treatment. ANOVAs (Table 2) were followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test. Error bars show SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. (G) Survival curves of WT (n = 65), Tg (n = 68) and Tg + MgT (n = 76) over 678 days of lifespan (MgT treatment started at 6 months of age). Log-rank Mantel-Cox test revealed significant difference between Tg mice and WT (p < 0.05) as well as Tg + MgT (p < 0.01).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 146

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Li, W., Yu, J., Liu, Y., Huang, X., Abumaria, N., Zhu, Y., Huang, X., Xiong, W., Ren, C., Liu, X.-G., Chui, D., & Liu, G.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, Guosong
ORCID
Venue
Molecular Brain
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-09-13
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
65-65
ISSN
1756-6606 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13041-014-0065-y
PMC
PMC4172865
OpenAlex
W2124506047
Cited by
146
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14
FWCI
8.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Molecular Brain (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (973 Program, 2013CB835102, 81270048, 30970957)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2011CB302201, 2009CB941303)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, magnesium L-threonate, synaptic loss, cognitive impairment, APP/PS1 mice, amyloid plaques, NMDA receptor signaling, BACE1, APP processing, calcineurin, hippocampus, memory impairment
MeSH terms
Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Body Weight, Brain, Butyrates, Cognition Disorders, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory Disorders, Mice, Transgenic, Motor Activity, Synaptic Transmission, Synapses, Signal Transduction, Down-Regulation, Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Aspartic Acid Endopeptidases, Amyloid Precursor Protein Secretases, Plaque, Amyloid

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