| Literature DB >> 27656663 |
Yasushi Kishimoto1, Hajime Shishido2, Mayumi Sawanishi1, Yasunori Toyota2, Masaki Ueno3, Takashi Kubota1, Yutaka Kirino1, Takashi Tamiya2, Nobuyuki Kawai4.
Abstract
This data article contains supporting information regarding the research article entitled "Traumatic brain injury accelerates amyloid-β deposition and impairs spatial learning in the triple-transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer׳s disease" (H. Shishido, Y. Kishimoto, N. Kawai, Y. Toyota, M. Ueno, T. Kubota, Y. Kirino, T. Tamiya, 2016) [1]. Triple-transgenic (3×Tg)-Alzheimer׳s disease (AD) model mice exhibited significantly poorer spatial learning than sham-treated 3×Tg-AD mice 28 days after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Correspondingly, amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition within the hippocampus was significantly greater in 3×Tg-AD mice 28 days after TBI. However, data regarding the short-term and long-term influences of TBI on amyloid precursor protein (APP) accumulation in AD model mice remain limited. Furthermore, there is little data showing whether physical activity and motor learning are affected by TBI in AD model mice. Here, we provide immunocytochemistry data confirming that TBI induces significant increases in APP accumulation in 3×Tg-AD mice at both 7 days and 28 days after TBI. Furthermore, 3×Tg-AD model mice exhibit a reduced ability to acquire conditioned responses (CRs) during delay eyeblink conditioning compared to sham-treated 3×Tg-AD model mice 28 days after TBI. However, physical activity and motor performance are not significantly changed in TBI-treated 3×Tg-AD model mice.Entities:
Keywords: AD, Alzheimer׳s disease; ANOVA, analysis of variance; APP, amyloid precursor protein; Amyloid precursor protein; CR, conditioned response; CS, conditioned stimulus; Eyeblink conditioning; Rotarod test; Spontaneous physical activity; TBI, traumatic brain injury; Traumatic brain injury; US, unconditioned stimulus
Year: 2016 PMID: 27656663 PMCID: PMC5021762 DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2016.08.041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Data Brief ISSN: 2352-3409
Fig. 1Data showing amyloid precursor protein (APP) accumulation in the 3×Tg-Alzheimer׳s disease (AD) model mouse hippocampus after traumatic brain injury (TBI). (A) Images demonstrate axonal immunoreactivity for APP in the hippocampal commissure at 7 days or 28 days after TBI. Scale bars: 100 μm. (B) Quantification of hippocampal APP accumulation. The presence of APP (expressed as the percentage of the area occupied by APP-immunopositive deposition in the ipsilateral hippocampus) was assessed using the ImageJ analysis system (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). APP accumulation was significantly greater in TBI-treated 3×Tg-AD (closed bar) mouse hippocampus both 7 days and 28 days after injury. **p<0.01, *p<0.05 relative to the corresponding sham-operated control group (open bar).
Fig. 2Data showing spontaneous physical activity (SPA) measures in traumatic brain injury (TBI)-treated 3×Tg-Alzheimer׳s disease (AD) model mice. (A, B) SPA was evaluated in TBI-treated (closed bar) and sham-treated 3×Tg-AD model (open bar) mice at 7 days (A) or 28 days (B) after TBI (n=7 in each group). Six separate parameters of spontaneous behavior (distance traveled, walking, jumping, rearing, hanging, and stretching) were evaluated for 3 h in the home cage. There were no significance differences between sham-operated and TBI-treated 3×Tg-AD model mice on any of the behavioral measures.
Fig. 3Data showing motor coordination and motor learning after traumatic brain injury (TBI) as assessed by the rotarod and delay eyeblink conditioning tasks, respectively. (A, B) 3×Tg-Alzheimer׳s disease (AD) mice (n=14) were equally assigned to the sham-operated or TBI-treated groups (n=7 per group), and then were subjected to the rotarod test. (A) There was no significant difference in rotarod performance between sham-operated 3×Tg-AD mice and TBI-treated mice at 7 days after injury. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant interaction effects between sessions and groups [p=0.68; F(4, 48)=0.571] and no significant group effect [p=0.371; F(1, 12)=0.870]. (B) There was also no significant difference in rotarod performance between sham-operated 3×Tg-AD mice and TBI-treated mice at 28 days after injury. ANOVA revealed no significant interaction effects between sessions and groups [p=0.61; F(4, 48)=0.683] and no significant group effect [p=0.98; F(1, 12)=0.00058]. (C, D) 3×Tg-AD mice (n=14) were equally assigned to sham-operated or TBI-treated groups (n=7 per group), and then were subjected to the delay eyeblink conditioning task. (C) There were no significant differences in the ability to acquire the conditioned response (CR) during the 7-day sessions between the 2 groups at 7 days after TBI. ANOVA revealed no significant interaction effects between sessions and groups [p=0.29; F(6, 72)=0.436] and no significant group effect [p=0.492; F(1, 12)=0.500]. (D) In contrast, there were significant differences in the ability to acquire the CR between the 2 groups at 28 days after TBI. ANOVA revealed no significant interaction effects between sessions and groups [p=0.91; F(6, 72)=0.336], but a significant group effect was observed [p=0.023; F(1, 12)=6.755]. However, a post hoc Bonferroni test revealed no significant differences between the two groups on any day. *p<0.05 relative to the corresponding sham-operated control group.
| Subject area | |
| More specific subject area | |
| Type of data | |
| How data was acquired | |
| Data format | |
| Experimental factors | |
| Experimental features | |
| Data source location | |
| Data accessibility |