Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Outcome devaluation performance was initially impaired in 36-week-old male J20 mice and in all 52-week-old mice regardless of genotype. A, Design of outcome devaluation. B, Lever press rates (±SEM) during days 1–4 of lever press acquisition. C, Lever press rates during the 4-d devaluation test. D, Lever press rates during the 4-d devaluation test displayed as a percentage of baseline responding. E, Magazine entries during the 4-d devaluation test. A = action, O = outcome. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 2.
Outcome devaluation was intact in the 8-d devaluation test for all male mice, regardless of age or genotype. A, Lever press rates (±SEM) during days 5–8 of lever press acquisition. B, Lever press rates during the 8-d devaluation test. C, Lever press rates during the 8-d devaluation test displayed as a percentage of baseline responding. D, Magazine entries during the 8-d test. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 3.
Outcome-selective reinstatement was impaired in 52-week-old J20 male mice but was unaltered in J20 male mice at 36 weeks old. A, Design of the outcome selective reinstatement procedure. B, Lever press rates during outcome selective reinstatement testing of 52 week olds. C, Lever press rates during the same test as a percentage of baseline responding. D, Lever press rates during outcome selective reinstatement testing of a separate cohort of 36 week olds. E, Lever press rates during the same test as a percentage of baseline responding. A = action, O = outcome. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 4.
Outcome devaluation performance is initially impaired in female J20 mice at 36 weeks old. A, Lever press rates (±SEM) during days 1–4 of acquisition. B, Lever press rates during the 4-d devaluation test. C, Lever press rates during the 4-d devaluation test displayed as a percentage of baseline responding. D, Magazine entries during the 4-d test. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 5.
Outcome devaluation performance was intact for all female mice, regardless of genotype, after 8 d of lever press training. A, Lever press rates (+/–) SEM during days 5–8 of acquisition. B, Lever press rates during the 8-d devaluation test. C, Lever press rates during the 8-d devaluation test as a percentage of baseline responding. D, Number of entries into the food receptacle (magazine) averaged over days 5–8. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 6.
Outcome-selective reinstatement was intact for all females, regardless of genotype. A, Lever press rates for female 36-week-old mice during outcome selective reinstatement testing. B, Lever press rates on the same test expressed as a percentage of baseline responding. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 7.
Quantification of IBA1 and Amylo Glo expression in the dorsal CA1 of male mice. A–D, Representative photomicrographs of male dorsal CA1 stained with Amylo Glo (red) in each group. Scale bar: 100 μm. A’–D’, Representative photomicrographs of male dorsal CA1 stained with Amylo Glo (red) and IBA1 (green) in each group. A’’–D’’, Enlarged inset. E, Number of cells positively immunostained for IBA1 per mm2. F, Number of plaques positively immunostained for Amylo Glo (taken from IBA1 images) per mm2. G, IBA1 intensity quantification. H, Correlation between IBA1 intensity and devaluation ratio from the 4-d test. I, Correlation between IBA1 intensity and devaluation ratio from the 8-d test. J, IBA1 intensity quantification for 36-week-old J20 males versus 36-week-old J20 females. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
- Figure 8.
Quantification of GFAP and Amylo-Glo expression in the dorsal CA1 of male mice. A–D, Representative photomicrographs of male dorsal CA1 stained with Amylo Glo (red) in each group. Scale bar: 100 μm. A’–D’, Representative photomicrographs of male dorsal CA1 stained with Amylo Glo (red) and GFAP (green) in each group. A’’–D’’, Enlarged inset. E, Number of cells positively immunostained for GFAP per mm2. F, Number of plaques positively immunostained for Amylo-GLo (taken from GFAP images) per mm2. G, GFAP intensity quantification. H, GFAP intensity quantification, 36-week-old J20 males versus 36-week-old J20 females. *p < .05, n.s. = non-significant.
In this issue
