Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Cognitive Deficits, Changes in Synaptic Function, and Brain Pathology in a Mouse Model of Normal Aging

Martin Weber, Tiffany Wu, Jesse E. Hanson, Nazia M. Alam, Hilda Solanoy, Hai Ngu, Benjamin E. Lauffer, Han H. Lin, Sara L. Dominguez, Jens Reeder, Jennifer Tom, Pascal Steiner, Oded Foreman, Glen T. Prusky and Kimberly Scearce-Levie
eNeuro 2 October 2015, 2 (5) ENEURO.0047-15.2015; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0047-15.2015
Martin Weber
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
2Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tiffany Wu
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jesse E. Hanson
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nazia M. Alam
3 Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, New York, 10605
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hilda Solanoy
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hilda Solanoy
Hai Ngu
4Department of Pathology, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin E. Lauffer
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Han H. Lin
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara L. Dominguez
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens Reeder
5Department of Bioinformatics, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Tom
5Department of Bioinformatics, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pascal Steiner
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oded Foreman
4Department of Pathology, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Glen T. Prusky
6Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medical College, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, New York 10605
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kimberly Scearce-Levie
1Department of Neuroscience, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    A, B, Sequence and timing of in vivo experiments (A) and time course of mortality in aged mice (B). A, Three cohorts of mice, each containing mice from each of the three age groups, were used for the majority of behavioral testing. Testing was completed within 75 d after single housing. Testing began with Barnes maze training, followed by tests of locomotion, multimodal AA (in half of the mice), FC, acoustic startle, visual AA (in the other half of the mice that were previously not tested in multimodal AA), visual placing, and, finally, NE. Mice were sacrificed immediately after the NE experiment. B, The time until a mouse died or had to be removed from the study due to health reasons is shown relative to the beginning of the study when mice were housed singly (see A). **p < 0.005.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Unchanged locomotor and rearing activity, but reduced percentage of activity in the center of the arena in aged mice. A, B, The total number of horizontal beam breaks (A) and rearings (B) are shown. No significant differences were detected between any of the age groups in either measure. C, The percentage of beam breaks that were recorded in the center of the locomotor arena is shown. Values are expressed as box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section of Materials and Methods. BB, Beam breaks. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.005.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Barnes maze performance is impaired in aged mice. A, B, Training sessions. The distance travelled (A) and velocity of movement (B) until the mice entered the escape tunnel during training are shown. C, D, Probe trials. C shows the number of exploration bouts that were recorded at the location of the target hole (defined as position 0) as well as each individual nontarget hole. The absolute value of the “hole number relative to the target” reflects the distance from the target hole. D, The average number of exploration bouts at the nontarget and target holes are shown. E, F, Reversal phase; the distance travelled (E) and the velocity of the movement (F) during the reversal phase of the task are shown. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (A–C, E, F) or box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section in Materials and Methods (D). *p < 0.05.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Contextual and cued fear conditioning training and testing are largely unaffected by age. A, The time course of freezing throughout the training is shown. Trial 1 and 2 refer to the first and second pairings of the NS or CS with the UCS. B, The time course of the motor responses in the training phase relative to the footshock is shown with a 2 s resolution using average values from the two trials. C, Percentage of freezing during the contextual FC test is shown. D, Percentage of freezing during the baseline and cued phase of the cued FC test is shown. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (A, B) or box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section in Materials and Methods (C, D). NS, Neutral stimuli.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Acoustic startle responses are reduced in aged mice. A, The movement intensity (artificial units) in response to 40 ms pulses of white noise (0–55 dB above background) is shown. B, The slope of the movement intensity over the stimulus intensity (in decibels above background) is shown. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (A) or box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section in Materials and Methods (B). ***p < 0.0001.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Active avoidance is impaired in aged mice in both multimodal and visual versions of the task. A, E, Percentage of successful avoidance trials is shown in blocks of 20 trials over the 2 day test period for the multimodal (A) and visual (E) version of the task. B, F, Slopes of the percentage of avoidance per trial are shown for the multimodal (B) and visual (F) AA task for both training days. C, D, G, H, The percentages of escapes (C, G) and escape failures (D, H) are shown in blocks of 20 trials over the 2 day test period for the multimodal (C, D) and visual (G, H) AA task. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (A, C, D, E, G, H) or box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section in Materials and Methods (B, F). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.005, ***p < 0.0001.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    A–E, Active avoidance (A–D) and optokinetic testing (E) in an independent cohort. Visual active avoidance is mildly impaired in 19-month-old mice. A, The percentage of successful active avoidance trials is shown in blocks of 20 trials over the 2 day test period for the visual version of the task. B, Slopes of the percentage of avoidance per trial are shown for both AA training days. C, D, The percentages of escapes (C) and escape failures (D) are shown in blocks of 20 trials over the 2 day test period. E, Contrast sensitivity from optokinetic tests is shown across varying spatial frequencies (in c/d). Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM. SEMs are not visible in E since they range from only 0.014 to 0.092 across age groups and spatial frequencies. $p < 0.1, ***p < 0.0001.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Markers of gliosis (GFAP, CD68) are increased in aged mice. A, B, Examples of brain slices showing areas of GFAP-positive (A) and CD68-positive (B) staining in the HPF are shown from the NE condition. C, The percentage of the total tissue area that had clustered GFAP-positive staining is shown. D, The percentage of the total tissue area from the HPF that had enlarged CD68-positive staining is shown. Values are expressed as box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section in Materials and Methods. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.005, ***p < 0.0001.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    c-Fos expression is reduced in the dentate gyrus, but not in the isocortex, of aged mice. A, Examples of brain slices showing the number of c-Fos-positive cells in the DG are shown from the NE condition. B, Aged mice had reduced c-Fos staining in the DG across environments when compared with young and middle-aged mice. C, In the isocortex, no age-dependent effects were observed. Values are expressed as box plots, as defined in the Data analysis section in Materials and Methods. **p < 0.005.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Age-dependent changes in electrophysiological measures of synaptic function in hippocampal area CA1. A, Field EPSPs measured in CA1 in response to stimulation of the Schaffer collateral pathway were reduced in aged mice. Initial EPSP slope is shown in response to increasing stimulation intensity (up to 1 mA, logarithmically spaced increments). Example traces from young and aged mice are shown in the inset. B, The PPR [EPSP slope in response to the second pulse (p2) divided by the EPSP slope in response to the first pulse (p1)] is shown as a function of interstimulus interval. Example traces from young and aged mice are shown in the inset. PPR values >1 reflect PPF. C, The EPSP slope normalized to baseline is shown during the course of the experiment. LTP was induced using TBS. The number of arrows corresponds to the number of TBS bouts. Example traces from young and aged mice are shown in the inset. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM. PPF, Paired-pulse facilitation. *p < 0.05.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Statistics

    Data structureTestExact p value (or estimated n)N
    aAnimal morbidityKaplan–Meier curves, one-factor, btw (age)χ20.001 (age)17 y; 17 m; 17 a
    bHorizontal BBOne-factor, btw (age)ANOVA0.27 (age)17 y; 17 m; 17 a
    cRearingOne-factor, btw (age)ANOVA0.24 (age)17 y; 17 m; 17 a
    d% BB in centerOne-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’s0.004 (age) 0.004 (y vs a), 0.027 (y vs m), 0.73 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 17 a
    eBarnes maze training (distance)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (trial)ANOVATukey’s0.018 (age), <0.0001 (trial), 0.67 (age × trial) 0.015 (y vs a), 0.15 (y vs m), 0.55 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 16 a
    fBarnes maze training (velocity)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (trial)ANOVATukey’s0.044 (age), <0.0001 (trial), 0.006 (age × trial) 0.25 (y vs a), 0.037 (y vs m), 0.64 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 16 a
    gBarnes maze probe (bouts; all age groups)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (hole type)ANOVATukey’s0.035 (age), <0.0001 (hole type), 0.053 (age × hole type) Age: 0.047 (y vs a), 0.087 (y vs m), 0.95 (m vs a); Hole type: <0.0001 Target hole: 0.043 (y vs a), 0.13 (y vs m), 0.84 (m vs a) Nontarget hole: 0.77 (y vs a), 0.15 (y vs m), 0.47 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 16 a
    hBarnes maze probe (Δ bouts and % BB)Two variables:Δ bouts (at target – average nontarget hole) and % BB in center in aged micePearson’s rp = 0.04616 a
    iBarnes maze reversal (distance)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (trial)ANOVA0.77 (age), <0.0001 (trial), 0.14 (age x trial)17 y; 17 m; 16 a
    jBarnes maze reversal (velocity)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (trial)ANOVA0.28 (age), 0.0005 (trial), 0.36 (age × trial)17 y; 17 m; 16 a
    kFC training (% freezing)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (training phase)ANOVA0.42 (age), <0.0001 (training phase); 0.82 (age × training phase)17 y; 17 m; 14 a
    lFC training (motion index)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (time)ANOVA0.65 (age), <0.0001 (time),0.67 (age × time)17 y; 17 m; 14 a
    mFC context test (% freezing)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’s0.046 (age) 0.89 (y vs a), 0.12 (y vs m), 0.057 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 14 a
    nFC cue test (% freezing)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (test phase)ANOVATukey’s0.31 (age), <0.0001 (test phase), 0.030 (age × test phase)Pre CS: 0.72 (y vs a), 0.73 (y vs m), 0.99 (m vs a) During CS: 0.12 (y vs a), 0.24 (y vs m), m vs a (0.88)17 y; 17 m; 14 a
    oAcoustic startle(movement intensity)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (stimulus intensity)ANOVATukey’s<0.0001 (age) <0.0001 (stimulus intensity) <0.0001 (age × stimulus intens.)Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.64 (y vs m), <0.0001 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 14 a
    pAcoustic startle [slope (movement intensity/dB)]One-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’sp < 0.0001 (age) Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.12 (y vs m), <0.0001 (m vs a)17 y; 17 m; 14 a
    qMultimodal AA (D1: % AA)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (blocks)ANOVATukey’s<0.0001 (age) <0.0001 (block)<0.0001 (age × block)Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.36 (y vs m), 0.001 (m vs a)8 y; 8 m; 8 a
    rMultimodal AA (D2: % AA)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (blocks)ANOVATukey’s<0.0001 (age) <0.0001 (block)0.005 (age × block) Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.79 (y vs m), <0.0001 (m vs a)8 y; 8 m; 8 a
    sMultimodal AA (D1: slope (% AA/block)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’sAge: 0.002 0.007 (y vs a), 0.98 (y vs m), 0.005 (m vs a)8 y; 8 m; 8 a
    tMultimodal AA (D2: slope (% AA/block)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’sAge: 0.024 0.023 (y vs a), 0.72 (y vs m), <0.11 (m vs a)8 y; 8 m; 8 a
    uVisual AA (D1: % AA)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (blocks)ANOVATukey’s0.036 (age) <0.0001 (block) <0.0001 (age × block)Age: 0.029 (y vs a), 0.30 (y vs m), 0.35 (m vs a)9 y; 9 m; 6 a
    vVisual AA (D2: % AA)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) & win (blocks)ANOVATukey’s0.002 (age) <0.0001 (block)0.74 (age × block) Age: 0.005 (y vs a), 0.98 (y vs m), 0.004 (m vs a)9 y; 9 m; 6 a
    wVisual AA (D1: slope (% AA/block)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’sAge: 0.001 0.003 (y vs a), 0.91 (y vs m), 0.001 (m vs a)9 y; 9 m; 6 a
    xVisual AA (D2: slope (% AA/block)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVATukey’sAge: 0.809 y; 9 m; 6 a
    yMultimodal and visual AA (D1 slope) and % BB in center1 AA and 1 locomotor variable: D1 slope (% AA/block) and % BB in centerPearson’s rp = 0.5414 a
    zVisual AA (D1: % AA)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (blocks)ANOVA0.92 (age) <0.0001 (block)0.65 (age × block)16 y; 19 a
    aaVisual AA (D2: % AA)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (blocks)ANOVA0.099 (age) <0.0001 (block)0.27 (age × block)16 y; 19 a
    abVisual AA (D1: slope (% AA/block)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVAAge: 0.3916 y; 19 a
    acVisual AA (D2: slope (% AA/block)One-factor, btw (age)ANOVAAge: 0.1516 y; 19 a
    adSpatial frequency thresholdOne-factor, btw (age)ANOVAAge: p < 0.000116 y; 20 a
    aeContrast sensitivityTwo-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (spatial frequency)ANOVAp < 0.0001 (age) p < 0.0001 (spatial frequency) p < 0.0001 (age × spatial frequency)16 y; 20 a
    afVisual AA (D1 slope) and spatial frequency threshold1 AA and 1 spatial frequency variable: D1 slope (% AA/block) and spatial frequency thresholdPearson’s rp = 0.3619 a
    agVisual AA (D2 slope) and spatial frequency threshold1 AA and 1 spatial frequency variable: D2 slope (% AA/block) and spatial frequency thresholdPearson’s rp = 0.8519 a
    ahVisual AA (D1 slope) and contrast sensitivity at 0.064 c/d1 AA and 1 contrast sensitivity variable: D1 slope (% AA/block) and contrast sensitivity at 0.064 c/dPearson’s rp = 0.7719 a
    aiVisual AA (D2 slope) and contrast sensitivity at 0.064 c/d1 AA and 1 contrast sensitivity variable: D2 slope (% AA/block) and contrast sensitivity at 0.064 c/dPearson’s rp = 0.5419 a
    aj% of clustered GFAP-positive tissue areaTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVATukey’s0.005 (age) 0.27 (environment)0.71 (age × environment) Age: 0.049 (y vs a), 0.45 (y vs m), 0.003 (m vs a)16 y; 16 m; 10 a
    akDensity of GFAP-positive clustersTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVATukey’s0.007 (age) 0.065 (environment)0.67 (age × environment)Age: 0.065 (y vs a), 0.45 (y vs m), 0.005 (m vs a)16 y; 16 m; 10 a
    alSize of GFAP-positive clustersTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA0.27 (age) 0.11 (environment)
    0.21 (age × environment)
    16 y; 15 m; 10 a
    amShape factor of GFAP-positive clustersTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA0.35 (age) 0.47 (environment)
    0.39 (age × environment)
    16 y; 15 m; 10 a
    an% of dark CD68-positive tissue areaTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA
    Tukey’s
    <0.0001 (age) 0.132 (environment)
    0.088 (age × environment)
    Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.461 (y vs m), <0.0001 (m vs a)
    16 y; 16 m; 9 a
    aoDensity of CD68-positive dark objectsTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA
    Tukey’s
    <0.0001 (age) 0.17 (environment)
    0.18 (age × environment)
    Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.13 (y vs m), <0.0001 (m vs a)
    16 y; 16 m; 9 a
    apSize of CD68-positive dark objectsTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA
    Tukey’s
    <0.0001 (age) 0.12 (environment)
    0.75 (age × environment)
    Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), 0.79 (y vs m), <0.0001 (m vs a)
    16 y; 16 m; 9 a
    aqShape factor of CD68-positive dark objectsTwo-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA
    Tukey’s
    <0.0001 (age) 0.60 (environment)
    0.24 (age × environment)
    Age: <0.0001 (y vs a), <0.0001 (y vs m), 0.47 (m vs a)
    16 y; 16 m; 9 a
    arVisual AA (D1 slope) and % GFAP-positive cluster area1 AA and GFAP measure: D1 slope (% AA/block) and % GFAP-positive cluster areaPearson’s rp = 0.8710 a
    asVisual AA (D1 slope) and % CD68-positive dark area1 AA and CD68 measure: D1 slope (% AA/block) and % CD68-positive dark areaPearson’s rp = 0.9010 a
    atNumber of c-Fos-positive cells (DG)Two-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA
    Tukey’s
    0.001 (age) 0.001 (environment)
    0.30 (age × environment)
    Age: 0.004 (y vs a), 0.002 (y vs m), 0.97 (m vs a)
    Environment: 0.001
    17 y; 17 m; 10 a
    auNumber of c-Fos-positive cells (isocortex)Two-factor, btw (age and environment)ANOVA
    Tukey’s
    0.98 (age) <0.0001 (environment)
    0.56 (age × environment)
    Environment: <0.0001
    17 y; 17 m; 10 a
    avNumber of c-Fos-positive cells (DG) and % BB in center1 c-Fos and 1 locomotor variable: number of c-Fos-positive cells (DG) and % BB in centerPearson’s rp = 0.4710 a
    awI–O relationship (EPSP slope)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (stimulus intensity)ANOVA0.021 (age), <0.0001 (stimulus intensity), <0.0001 (age × stimulus intensity)20 y, 5 y; 30 a, 5 a
    axPPR (p2/p1)Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (ISI)ANOVA0.024 (age), <0.0001 (ISI), <0.015 (age × ISI)22 a, 5 a; 30 a, 5 a
    ayLTP
    (EPSP slope)
    Two-factor, mixed-design: btw (age) and win (number of TBSs)ANOVA0.11 (age), <0.0001 (number of TBSs), <0.89 (age × number of TBS)12 y, 5y; 17 a, 5 a
    azLTP
    (EPSP slope; responses to 1 TBS pulse only)
    One-factor, btw design (age)ANOVA0.058 (age)12 y, 5 y;
    17 a, 5 a
    • y, Young; m, middle-aged; a, aged; btw, between-factor of the ANOVA; win, within-factor of the ANOVA; N depicts the number of animals, or the number of slices for electrophysiological experiments; D1 and D2 refer to day 1 and day 2 of training or testing, respectively; p2/p1, EPSP slope in response to the second pulse divided by the EPSP slope in response to the first pulse.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 2 (5)
eNeuro
Vol. 2, Issue 5
September/October 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cognitive Deficits, Changes in Synaptic Function, and Brain Pathology in a Mouse Model of Normal Aging
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Cognitive Deficits, Changes in Synaptic Function, and Brain Pathology in a Mouse Model of Normal Aging
Martin Weber, Tiffany Wu, Jesse E. Hanson, Nazia M. Alam, Hilda Solanoy, Hai Ngu, Benjamin E. Lauffer, Han H. Lin, Sara L. Dominguez, Jens Reeder, Jennifer Tom, Pascal Steiner, Oded Foreman, Glen T. Prusky, Kimberly Scearce-Levie
eNeuro 2 October 2015, 2 (5) ENEURO.0047-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0047-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Cognitive Deficits, Changes in Synaptic Function, and Brain Pathology in a Mouse Model of Normal Aging
Martin Weber, Tiffany Wu, Jesse E. Hanson, Nazia M. Alam, Hilda Solanoy, Hai Ngu, Benjamin E. Lauffer, Han H. Lin, Sara L. Dominguez, Jens Reeder, Jennifer Tom, Pascal Steiner, Oded Foreman, Glen T. Prusky, Kimberly Scearce-Levie
eNeuro 2 October 2015, 2 (5) ENEURO.0047-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0047-15.2015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • age
  • c-Fos
  • cognition
  • gliosis
  • mice
  • synaptic function

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.