Cited by 755Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 368 of the 369 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 276 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Using mice to model Alzheimer's dementia: an overview of the clinical disease and the preclinical behavioral changes in 10 mouse models

Open access
Webster, Scott J., Bachstetter, Adam D., Nelson, Peter T., Schmitt, Frederick A., Van Eldik, Linda J.·2014·Frontiers in Genetics

Abstract

The goal of this review is to discuss how behavioral tests in mice relate to the pathological and neuropsychological features seen in human Alzheimer's disease (AD), and present a comprehensive analysis of the temporal progression of behavioral impairments in commonly used AD mouse models that contain mutations in amyloid precursor protein (APP). We begin with a brief overview of the neuropathological changes seen in the AD brain and an outline of some of the clinical neuropsychological assessments used to measure cognitive deficits associated with the disease. This is followed by a critical assessment of behavioral tasks that are used in AD mice to model the cognitive changes seen in the human disease. Behavioral tests discussed include spatial memory tests [Morris water maze (MWM), radial arm water maze (RAWM), Barnes maze], associative learning tasks (passive avoidance, fear conditioning), alternation tasks (Y-Maze/T-Maze), recognition memory tasks (Novel Object Recognition), attentional tasks (3 and 5 choice serial reaction time), set-shifting tasks, and reversal learning tasks. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these behavioral tasks, and how they may correlate with clinical assessments in humans. Finally, the temporal progression of both cognitive and non-cognitive deficits in 10 AD mouse models (PDAPP, TG2576, APP23, TgCRND8, J20, APP/PS1, TG2576 + PS1 (M146L), APP/PS1 KI, 5×FAD, and 3×Tg-AD) are discussed in detail. Mouse models of AD and the behavioral tasks used in conjunction with those models are immensely important in contributing to our knowledge of disease progression and are a useful tool to study AD pathophysiology and the resulting cognitive deficits. However, investigators need to be aware of the potential weaknesses of the available preclinical models in terms of their ability to model cognitive changes observed in human AD. It is our hope that this review will assist investigators in selecting an appropriate mouse model, and accompanying behavioral paradigms to investigate different aspects of AD pathology and disease progression.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review maps how behavioral tasks used in amyloid precursor protein (APP) mutant mice correspond to the neuropsychological assessments used clinically in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and tabulates the temporal onset of cognitive and non-cognitive deficits across 10 commonly used AD mouse models. It concludes that no single model recapitulates human AD, but that most models show spatial working memory deficits earlier than deficits in other cognitive domains.

Key findings

  • Across the reviewed models, the earliest observable cognitive impairment is consistently in spatial working memory (assessed by water maze tasks), generally followed by associative learning/reference memory deficits, with recognition memory deficits appearing later (e.g., PDAPP: working memory at 4 months, NOR at 6 months; Tg2576: spatial working memory at 5 months, NOR at 12 months; APP/PS1 KI: RAWM at 9 months, recognition memory at 15 months).
  • Onset varies substantially by model: J20 shows recognition memory deficits earliest (1–2 months), while APP/PS1 KI shows the latest onset (7–9 months for earliest deficits).
  • Non-cognitive abnormalities are also present in most models, including increased locomotor activity (J20 and TgCRND8 earliest at ~1 month; PDAPP and Tg2576 at ~3 months; PS1, 3×Tg-AD, and APP23 at ~6–9 months), anxiety, circadian/sleep disruption, and aggression (e.g., APP23 aggression by 6 months).
  • The review notes that increased aggression presents in as much as 65% of AD patients, and that depressive symptom prevalence in AD is reported to range from 2% to 85%, though little work has examined depressive-like behavior in AD mouse models.

Methods

  • Narrative review, not primary experimental work: it summarizes human AD neuropathology (ABC scoring of Amyloid, Braak, CERAD), clinical neuropsychological instruments (MMSE, MoCA, SBT, ADAS-cog, Logical Memory I/II, BVRT), and mouse behavioral tasks (MWM, RAWM, Barnes maze, Y-/T-maze, NOR, fear conditioning, passive/active avoidance, DMTP/DMTS, 3- and 5-CSRTT, set-shifting, reversal learning, WWWhich).
  • The core synthesis is two tables (Table 3 for five APP models: PDAPP, TG2576, APP23, TgCRND8, J20; Table 4 for five APP+PS1/Tau models: APP/PS1, TG2576+PS1(M146L), APP/PS1 KI, 5×FAD, 3×Tg-AD) coding impairment, no impairment, or no data by age, with an asterisk marking first appearance of diffuse amyloid plaques.
  • No new data, sample sizes, or statistical analyses are reported; findings are drawn from cited primary studies.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: no animal model recapitulates the entirety of AD; most models represent familial AD (FAD), which accounts for only a small percentage of total AD cases; background strain and likely overexpression of mutant human APP genes on brain development and function must always be considered; language-dependent domains (verbal acuity, verbal recall) cannot be modeled in rodents; the WWWhich episodic-like memory task is not comparable to human episodic memory tests because those rely on language; homology between rodent and human 5-CSRTT is "far from perfect."
  • Stated by the paper: the tables are not an all-encompassing list of mouse models, only examples of commonly used APP-mutation models.
  • Evident from the text: the tables contain many cells with no available data, and the review documents inconsistent reports across studies for several models (e.g., Tg2576 spatial memory deficits not replicated in some reports; PDAPP recognition memory findings inconsistent), indicating that model-by-model progression claims rest on heterogeneous and sometimes conflicting literature.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fgene.2014.00088

Cites

368 of 369 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 276 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 132 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 24
61 of 61
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No animal model recapitulates the entirety of AD in humans.

    “However, no animal model recapitulates the entirety of AD in humans, and therefore it is important to understand both the utility and limitations of particular animal models.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Outside of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), one does not see widespread cortical NFTs without abundant plaque pathology.

    “It should be noted that outside of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), one does not see widespread cortical NFTs without abundant plaque pathology.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    During late stages (Braak stage V–VI), NFTs increase in number and manifest in neocortical areas responsible for higher cognitive domains such as executive function, visuospatial capacities, and speech in synchrony with observed AD-related cognitive deficits in these respective cognitive domains.

    “During the late stages (Braak stage V–VI), NFTs increase in number and manifest in neocortical areas responsible for higher cognitive domains such as executive function, visuospatial capacities, and speech in synchrony with observed AD-related cognitive deficits in these respective cognitive domains.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some of the earliest neuropathological changes in AD are in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, followed by changes in the medial temporal lobe.

    “Some of the earliest neuropathological changes in AD are in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, followed by changes in the medial temporal lobe.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Neuropsychological assessment is the most reliable means to clinically evaluate the cognitive deficits seen in humans.

    “Neuropsychological assessment is the most reliable means to clinically evaluate the cognitive deficits seen in humans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Other cognitive domains impaired in human AD such as those involving language (i.e., verbal acuity tasks and verbal recall tasks) simply cannot be modeled in rodent models.

    “Other cognitive domains impaired in human AD such as those involving language (i.e., verbal acuity tasks and verbal recall tasks) simply cannot be modeled in rodent models.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Working memory is perhaps one of the most well modeled aspects of the memory deficits in AD.

    “Working memory is perhaps one of the most well modeled aspects of the memory deficits in AD.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    As the patient moves from the preclinical phase of AD into MCI, more cognitive domains begin to be affected.

    “As the patient moves from the preclinical phase of AD into MCI, more cognitive domains begin to be affected.”
8 of 8

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 365 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Benedict, 1994, Preliminary standardization and validation of a multiple-form test for the assessment of visuospatial memory, Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol, 9, 109
  2. Benton, 1992, Benton Visual Retention Test, 5th Edn

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–752 of 752

Metadata

Authors
Webster, S. J., Bachstetter, A. D., Nelson, P. T., Schmitt, F. A., & Van Eldik, L. J.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
Venue
Frontiers in Genetics
Published
2014-04-23
Volume
5
Pages
88-88
ISSN
1664-8021 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982313782
Cited by
755
References
365
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 14
FWCI
8.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG028383)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › 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, mouse models of Alzheimer's disease, amyloid precursor protein mutations, APP/PS1 mice, PDAPP mice, Tg2576 mice, APP23 mice, TgCRND8 mice, 5xFAD mice, 3xTg-AD mice, behavioral tests, cognitive impairment, spatial memory, recognition memory, associative learning, attention, set-shifting, reversal learning, neuropsychological assessment

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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