Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Effects of ICA on MWM performance deficits in SAMP8 mice. (A) Schematic representation of the experimental design. (B) The latencies were measured to assess the mouse learning and memory ability in 4-day training trials. (C) The percentage of time spent in the target quadrant. Data are presented as the mean ± S.D. (n = 8–12). *P < 0.05 vs. SAMR1, #P < 0.05 vs. SAMP8.
- Fig. 2.
Effects of ICA on SA-β-gal activity in brain tissue of SAMP8 and SAMR1 mice. (A) Representative images of SA-β-gal staining. Original magnification, 200×. Scale bar, 50 μm. (B) Quantitation of senescent-positive cells. Data were expressed as the mean ± S.D. (n = 4). *P < 0.05 vs. SAMR1, #P < 0.05 vs. SAMP8.
- Fig. 3.
Effect of ICA on hippocampal neurons of SAMP8 mice. (A) Representative images showing Nissl bodies in the hippocampal CA1. Original magnification, 200×. Scale bar, 50 μm. (B) Quantitation of pyramidal cells in the CA1 hippocampal region. The numbers of Nissl bodies were captured in the three fields of the CA1 region of the hippocampus. The data represent the mean ± S.D. (n = 4). *P < 0.01 vs. SAMR1; #P < 0.01 vs. SAMP8.
- Fig. 4.
Effect of ICA on autophagosome formation in hippocampal neurons. A–E. Representative ultrastructure images of each group (magnification, 15,000×; scale bar, 1 μm); a–e. Representative ultrastructure images of each group represent (magnification, 30,000×; scale bar, 2 μm). The red arrows indicate autophagosomes (n = 4).
- Fig. 5.
Effect of ICA on the expression of LC3-II and p62 in hippocampus and cortex. (A) Representative bands of protein expression in hippocampus. (B) Representative bands of protein expression in cortex. (C) Quantitation of LC3-II protein level in hippocampus. (D) Quantitation of LC3-II protein level in cortex. (E) Quantitation of p62 protein level in hippocampus. (F) Quantitation of p62 protein level in cortex. The relative optical density was normalized to β-actin. The data were expressed as the mean ± S.D. (n = 4). *P < 0.05 vs. SAMR1; #P < 0.05 vs. SAMP8.
