Figure 5

Effect of vial type on climbing behavior in wild-type and hAPP transgenic flies. A. The climbing ability of wild type and hAPP expressing flies reared in glass or plastic vials was determined. Percentage represents the portion of flies displaying normal behavior. N = 161 and 171 for wild type in plastic and glass vials, 171 and 173 for transgenic flies in plastic and glass vials, respectively. Mean +/- SEM. Climbing was statistically different by 4 weeks (p < 0.05). The error bars for the transgenic flies reared in glass vials were are not easily observed due to their small size. B. Flying assay was performed with 5 week old wild type flies cultured in glass (black) or plastic (white) vials and for hAPP expressing flies in glass (dark gray) or plastic vials (light gray). N = 199 and 126 for the wild-type animals reared in plastic and glass vials, and N = 126 and 128 for transgenic flies in plastic and glass vials, respectively. Mean +/- SEM. C. Climbing assays were performed with wild type flies cultured in glass, uncoated or siliconized plastic vials. In this set of experiments the flies reared in glass vials displayed a slightly better performance relative to the animals represented in Figure 5A. N = 117, 121, and118, respectively. Mean +/- SEM. Climbing was statistically different by 4 weeks (p < 0.05) D. Climbing assays were performed with hAPP expressing flies reared in glass, uncoated and siliconized plastic vials. N = 124, 118, and 141, respectively. Mean +/- SEM.