Fig. 2

sAPPα transduction rescued spatial learning and memory in the APP/PS1 mice. a In the open field all groups preferred the periphery (p < 0.001), but this preference was stronger in Tg-controls (n = 11) compared to WT-control (n = 22, p < 0.05, Students t-test). The Tg-sAPPa group showed a trend toward reduced time in the periphery (n = 23, p = 0.084) compared to Tg-controls. b Mean distances travelled by each group were not significantly different. c For spatial reference memory acquisition in the water maze, there was a significant group main effect (F_(1,54) = 3.33, p = 0.043) for proximity to the platform, with a strong trend for Tg-controls to be impaired relative to WT-control animals (Tukey p = 0.071), while Tg-sAPPα animals performed significantly better than Tg-control animals (p = 0.046). d There was a significant group main effect (F_(1,54) = 3.33, p = 0.043) with a strong trend for impaired performance on day 6 by the Tg-control group compared to WT-controls (p = 0.068) and by enhanced performance of the Tg-sAPPα group compared to Tg-controls (p = 0.018). e, f Tg-control mice had significantly poorer memory for the platform position than WT-controls (Probe 1: proximity p = 0.004, crossings p = 0.037; Probe 2: proximity p = 0.016, crossings p = 0.006). Tg-sAPPα mice exhibited a partial rescue in Probe 1 and a complete rescue in Probe 2 (proximity p = 0.022, crossings p = 0.006 compared to Tg-control). g, h Spatial working memory testing revealed a significant group main effect (G, Day 2: p < 0.001; H, Day 3: p = 0.004). On both days, Tg-controls performed significantly worse than WT-controls (Day 1: p = 0.025; Day 2: p = 0.034) while Tg-sAPPα animals were significantly better than Tg-controls (Day 1: p < 0.001; Day 2: p = 0.003). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001