Skip to main content
Canna~Fangled Abstracts

Effect of long-term cannabidiol on learning and anxiety in a female Alzheimer’s disease mouse model

By October 22, 2022October 23rd, 2022No Comments

Journal List > Front Pharmacol > PMC9551202

 2022; 13: 931384.
Published online 2022 Sep 27. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.931384
PMCID: PMC9551202
PMID: 36238565
Rose Chesworth, 1 , † David Cheng, 2 , † Chloe Staub, 1 and Tim Karlcorresponding author 1 , 2 ,*
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

Cannabidiol is a promising potential therapeutic for neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Our laboratory has shown that oral CBD treatment prevents cognitive impairment in a male genetic mouse model of AD, the amyloid precursor protein 1 x presenilin 1 hemizygous (APPxPS1) mouse. However, as sex differences are evident in clinical populations and in AD mouse models, we tested the preventive potential of CBD therapy in female APPxPS1 mice. In this study, 2.5-month-old female wildtype-like (WT) and APPxPS1 mice were fed 20 mg/kg CBD or a vehicle via gel pellets daily for 8 months and tested at 10.5 months in behavioural paradigms relevant to cognition (fear conditioning, FC; cheeseboard, CB; and novel object recognition test, NORT) and anxiety-like behaviours (elevated plus maze, EPM). In the CB, CBD reduced latencies to find a food reward in APPxPS1 mice, compared to vehicle-treated APPxPS1 controls, and this treatment effect was not evident in WT mice. In addition, CBD also increased speed early in the acquisition of the CB task in APPxPS1 mice. In the EPM, CBD increased locomotion in APPxPS1 mice but not in WT mice, with no effects of CBD on anxiety-like behaviour. CBD had limited effects on the expression of fear memory. These results indicate preventive CBD treatment can have a moderate spatial learning-enhancing effect in a female amyloid-β-based AD mouse model. This suggests CBD may have some preventive therapeutic potential in female familial AD patients.

Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease, behaviour, cannabidiol (CBD), spatial memory, female, amyloid precursor protein, presenilin 1

1 Introduction

Recently, there has been increasing interest in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-intoxicating phytocannabinoid compound in the Cannabis sativa L. [Cannabaceae] plant, for the treatment of several neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders. CBD possesses antioxidant, anti-apoptotic, neuroprotective, and anti-inflammatory properties [reviews: (; )]. This is particularly relevant for brain disorders characterised by neuroinflammation and cell death including neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), which has no cure. Dementia affects over 55 million people globally, of which AD is the most common form (). AD is characterised by the presence of extracellular amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles consisting of hyperphosphorylated tau (); these are found in the neocortex (Aβ) and the transentorhinal cortex (tau) in early disease stages but spread throughout the brain as the disease progresses (; ). Inflammatory markers [e.g., interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and activated microglia] and markers for oxidative stress [e.g. oxidised proteins and oxidative modifications in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (; )] are also commonly found in AD postmortem brain tissue () and are hypothesised to precede the development of Aβ and tau pathology (). Targeting inflammation is of increasing interest as an AD treatment approach (). The failure of anti-inflammatory therapies to date may be due to missing the therapeutic window () or requiring multimodal drug strategies to target a complex disease (). Considering the anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptotic, and neuroprotective properties of CBD, there is growing interest in its potential for the treatment of AD ().

In vitro data indicate CBD can reduce AD-relevant pathology [reviews: (; )]. CBD inhibits tau hyperphosphorylation (; ), reduces full-length APP expression, and reduces Aβ peptide expression (), suggesting CBD can reduce AD pathology in cell culture. CBD also improves cell survival and reduces the production of reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide production (; ; ), suggesting CBD can reduce Aβ-induced toxicity. CBD can also protect against cell viability loss induced by Aβ42 (), which is a major component of amyloid plaques (). CBD reduces microglial function and cytokine gene and protein expression after intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) or hippocampal Aβ administration to mice (; ) and can upregulate the immune system function and increase autophagy in AD models (), which may be another mechanism by which CBD improves AD pathology. CBD may also have therapeutic effects in AD by acting on hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP); pretreatment with CBD prevents the Aβ1-42 oligomer-induced reduction in hippocampal CA1 LTP in mice (), thereby reversing effects of AD pathology on synaptic plasticity.

Preclinical in vivo data suggest remedial CBD treatment via i. p. administration reverses cognitive impairment in pharmacological and genetic mouse models for Alzheimer’s disease [reviews: (; )]. For example, chronic CBD prevents learning and memory impairments in mice injected with Aβ intraventricularly (). Also, in a mouse model of familial AD (; ; ; ), i.e., mice hemizygous for amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin 1 (PS1) genes (i.e. APPxPS1 mice), they are characterised by increased Aβ accumulation and accelerated plaque pathology from 4 months of age () and spatial learning and memory deficits from 7 to 8 months of age (; ). Therapeutic effects of CBD in APPxPS1 mice have been found at different CBD doses [range of 5–50 mg/kg (; ; )] and also when using CBD-enriched extracts (). The mechanisms involved are not entirely clear. Chronic CBD has moderate effects on Aβ levels in the hippocampus () and reduces the astrocytic response and cell surface adhesion molecule CCL4 mRNA expression in APPxPS1 mice (). However, to date, remedial CBD treatment has not been shown to strongly affect other AD-relevant receptors and molecules in APPxPS1 mice, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ), ionised calcium-binding adaptor molecule 1 (IBA1) and various cytokines ().

In addition to the remedial effects (i.e., CBD administered when behavioural impairment is present), CBD has been found to prevent the development of AD-relevant behavioural impairments. When CBD is administered orally for 8 months from 2.5 months of age, CBD prevents the development of social recognition impairment in male APPxPS1 mice (). In this study, there were also subtle effects of CBD on neuroinflammation and cholesterol in the cortex and dietary phytosterol retention in the cortex and hippocampus (). This suggests CBD has potential preventive and pro-cognitive effects on AD in male animals.

Despite this, the potential preventive effects of CBD treatment on cognition in female APPxPS1 mice are unknown. This is a critical question as sex differences are evident in AD: there is a higher prevalence of AD in women, and women suffer greater cognitive deterioration than men at the same disease stage (; ). Importantly, sex differences are also found in the APPxPS1 mouse model, e.g., social novelty recognition impairment is evident in male APPxPS1 mice but not in female mice, while spatial memory impairment is evident in female APPxPS1 mice but not in male APPxPS1 mice (; ). Female APPxPS1 mice also show greater amyloid burden and higher plaque number (), as well as higher levels of phosphorylated tau and proinflammatory cytokines, more severe astrocytosis and microgliosis, and greater neuronal and synaptic degeneration than male mice at the same age (). These sex differences make the APPxPS1 mice an appropriate model to investigate potential sex differences in CBD’s efficacy for treating cognitive impairment in AD. Furthermore, remedial CBD treatment (i.e., after the development of cognitive deficits) affects different domains in male and female APPxPS1 mice: CBD improves social recognition, object recognition, and spatial reversal learning in male APPxPS1 mice (; ) but only object recognition deficits in female APPxPS1 mice (). Indeed, there has been limited investigation of sex differences in CBD’s effects on anxiety-like behaviour and cognition, e.g., (; ; ), highlighting the importance of examining female and male animals. Thus, we sought to determine if preventive CBD affects different behavioural domains in male and female APPxPS1 mice. Finally, we assessed a preventative approach because treatment after symptom onset may be too late to limit ongoing neurodegenerative processes in AD (), and thus, treatments with preventative potential could have significant clinical impact by limiting disease progression and symptom onset.

Thus, the present study was designed to complement earlier behavioural research in our laboratory (), to determine if 20 mg/kg CBD treatment given orally via gel pellets for 8 months prevents the development of the AD-relevant behavioural phenotype in APPxPS1 female mice.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Animals

APPxPS1 hemizygous mice on a congenic C57BL/6JxC3H/HeJ background were generated, as described previously (; ; ; ). These mice were originally described by ). They express the “humanized” mouse amyloid beta precursor protein gene modified at three amino acids to reflect the human residues and further modified to contain the K595N/M596L (also called K670N/M671L) mutations linked to familial Alzheimer’s. They also express a mutant human presenilin 1 carrying the exon-9-deleted variant (PSEN1dE9) associated with familial Alzheimer’s disease. These gene mutations are controlled by mouse prion protein promoter elements, directing transgene expression predominantly to CNS neurons.

Mice were bred at Australian BioResources (ABR: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia), where they were group housed in individually ventilated cages (Type Mouse Version 1: Airlaw, Smithfield, Australia) under a 12/12 h light/dark cycle with a dawn/dusk simulation. Mice were transported to the Neuroscience Research Australia animal facility (Randwick, Australia) at ∼10 weeks of age, where littermates were group housed (two to three mice per cage) in polysulfone cages (1144B: Techniplast, Rydalmere, Australia) with corn cob bedding (PuraCob Premium: Able Scientific, Perth, Australia) and tissues for nesting. Mice were kept under a 12:12 h light:dark schedule [light phase: white light (illumination: 210 lx); lights on 0700–1900 h]. Environmental temperature was automatically regulated at 21 ± 1°C, and relative humidity was 40–60%. Food (Gordon’s Rat and Mouse Maintenance Pellets: Gordon’s Specialty Stockfeeds, Yanderra, Australia) and water were provided ad libitum, except where specified.

Research and animal care procedures were approved by the University of New South Wales Animal Care and Ethics Committee in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. APPxPS1 mice and their non-transgenic wild type-like littermates (WT) were approximately 2.4 months of age at the onset of the study. The number of animals per group was as follows: 14 WT-vehicle, 16 APPxPS1-vehicle, 14 WT-CBD, and 12 APPxPS1-CBD.

2.2 Drugs

Powdered CBD (CAS: 13956-29-1, THC Pharm GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Germany) was used at a dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, based on previous work in our laboratory (; ). CBD was administered in gel pellets to prevent the stress of chronic injections on behavioural and cognitive results; methods were identical to those published previously (). Briefly, CBD or the vehicle were dissolved in a highly palatable, sweetened, and chocolate-flavoured gel pellet and administered at a volume of 8 ml/kg body weight. CBD was dissolved in gel pellets with a final composition of 2.0% ethanol, 2.0% Tween 80, 15.2% Splenda (Splenda Low Calorie Sweetener: Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty, Broadway, Australia), 8.7% gelatine (Davis Gelatine: GELITA Australia Pty, Josephville, Australia), 20.1% chocolate flavouring (Queen Flavouring Essence Imitation Chocolate: Queen Fine Foods Pty, Alderley, Australia), and 52.0% water for irrigation. Vehicle gel pellets were identical but contained no CBD.

2.3 Treatment schedule

Mice were initially habituated to vehicle gel pellets in their home cages for 7 days prior to the start of treatment. Following this, mice were isolated within their home cages during treatment by placing a plastic divider in the home cage. Then, animals were given either a vehicle or a CBD gel pellet (treatments were quasi-randomized), which they consumed within 2–5 min. Mice did not need to be food-deprived to ensure they ate the gel pellet. A trained experimenter watched all the animals consume the gel pellets daily to ensure the correct dose was administered each day. The plastic divider was removed once the mice had consumed the gel pellets. Mice were treated daily for 8 months (i.e., from 2.5 to 10.5 months of age) late in the afternoon, to avoid potential effects of acute CBD on test outcomes.

2.4 Behavioural testing

Starting at 10 months of age, mice were tested with an inter-test interval of at least 48 h (). We chose paradigms based on the baseline behavioural phenotype previously reported in these mice in our laboratory (). This strategy was chosen rather than directly replicating the test biography of CBD-treated APPxPS1 male mice ()] as female AD transgenic mice exhibit a different cognitive profile to males, i.e., only females exhibit impaired spatial memory (), whereas only transgenic males show impaired social recognition memory (). All tests were conducted during the first 5 h of the light phase to minimize the effects of the circadian rhythm. All test apparatus was cleaned with 70% v/v ethanol in between test animals. Behavioural tests were conducted in the following order: fear conditioning, cheeseboard, elevated plus maze, and novel object recognition.

 

2.4.1 Fear conditioning (FC)

FC assesses hippocampal- and amygdala-dependent associative learning, and methods were identical to those published previously (; ; ). During conditioning, mice were placed into the test chamber (Model H10-11R-TC, Coulbourn Instruments, United States) for 2 min. An 80 dB conditioned stimulus (CS) was presented twice for 30 s with a co-terminating 0.4-mA 2-s foot shock (unconditioned stimulus; US) with an inter-pairing interval of 2 min. The test concluded 2 min later. The next day (context test), mice were returned to the apparatus for 7 min. On day 3 (cue test), animals were placed in an altered context for 9 min. After 2 min (pre-CS/baseline), the CS was presented continuously for 5 min. The test concluded after another 2 min, without the CS. Time spent freezing was measured by Any-MazeTM software.

 

2.4.2 Cheeseboard (CB)

Spatial memory was assessed in the CB using established methods (; ; ). Sweetened condensed milk, 1:4 in water, was used as a food reward, and mice were food-restricted during CB training and testing (access to food for 1–2 h, following completion of daily testing, mice kept at 85-90% of free feeding body weight). There were three trials per day, except at the probe, where there was one trial. All trials were 2 min, unless the food reward was located in <2 min, with a 20-min intertrial interval (ITI).

Mice were habituated to the blank side of the board for 2 days. Next, mice were trained for 7 days to locate a well containing a food reward. The latency of the mice to find the target well was recorded, and if the food reward was not located within 2 min, the mouse was gently guided to the well by the experimenter. Mice were considered to have learnt the task if the average latency of all three trials in 1 day was <20 s. After 7 days, our control group (WT VEH) met acquisition criteria. The next day, a probe trial was conducted to assess spatial reference memory. No wells were baited, and mice were given 2 min to explore the apparatus freely. To assess if animals could update their spatial learning contingencies, we conducted reversal learning, whereby the location of the food reward was changed. Mice completed 4 days of reversal training before the reversal probe trial (WT VEH mice met reversal criteria in 4 days), which was conducted 24 h after reversal training. During the reversal probe, no wells were baited and mice were given 2 min to explore the apparatus freely. Mice were returned to free feeding, following completion of the CB, and subsequent behavioural tests were conducted, and only once mice had returned to free feeding weight.

The average latency to find the reward was analysed as a general indication of learning, and this was used to determine when mice acquired the task (; ). The first trial per day across training was also analysed to assess long-term reference memory (retention of ≥24 h), and the average of trials 2 and 3 each day across training was analysed to assess intermediate-term memory [retention falling between short-term (<2 min) and long-term (>24 h) memory] (; ). The average speed and distance were analysed throughout acquisition and reversal learning. At probe tests, the time spent in the different CB zones (i.e., board was separated into 8 equal zones, corresponding with the lines of wells) and the average speed and distance travelled were measured by Any-MazeTM software.

 

2.4.3 Elevated plus maze (EPM)

The EPM assesses the natural conflict between the tendency of mice to explore a novel environment and their avoidance of a brightly lit, elevated, and open area (). Methods have been described previously (; ). The ‘+’ apparatus consisted of two alternate open arms (35 cm × 6 cm; without side walls) and two alternate enclosed arms (35 cm × 6 cm; height of enclosing walls 28 cm) connected by a central platform (6 cm × 6 cm), elevated 70 cm above the floor. Mice were placed at the centre of the ‘+’ of the grey PVC plus maze, facing an enclosed arm, and were allowed to explore the maze for 5 min. The time spent on open arms, entries into the open arms, and the distance travelled on the open and enclosed arms were recorded by AnyMaze™ tracking software.

 

2.4.4 Novel object recognition test

The innate preference of a mouse for novelty and its ability to distinguish a novel object from a familiar object () are utilised in the NORT. The NORT was conducted over 3 days [methods: ()]. Two 10-min trials were conducted per day, with a 1 h ITI. On day 1, mice were habituated to the empty arena during both trials. On day 2, mice were habituated to the empty arena during trial 1 and to two identical objects during trial 2. On the test day (day 3), mice were exposed to two identical objects in the training trial (objects distinct from day 2) and then one familiar and one novel object in the test trial. The objects used were a mini Rubik’s cube and a plastic garden hose nozzle. The objects and their locations were counterbalanced across genotypes and treatment groups. Time spent nosing and rearing on the objects was recorded by AnyMaze™ tracking software and confirmed by manual scoring. The percentage of time spent nosing the novel object indicated short-term object recognition memory (% novel object recognition) and was calculated using [(novel object nosing time/novel + familiar object nosing time) × 100]. The percentage of time spent nosing and rearing was combined to create an “exploration” score, and the percentage of novel object exploration was calculated in the same way as % nosing.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM, NY, United States). Three- and two-way repeated measures (RM) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with within factors “minutes” (FC) or “cue” (FC) and between factors “genotype” (WT vs. APPxPS1) and “treatment” (VEH vs. CBD 20 mg/kg) was conducted. Where interactions were found, we conducted subsequent two- and one-way ANOVA split by the corresponding factor, as published previously (; ; ; ; ). Post hoc effects are shown in figures only. Data from fear conditioning and cheeseboard were analysed with three-way ANOVA but are presented in separate graphs for visual clarity.

Data for the FC cue test were also analysed as total freezing in the 2 min prior to tone presentation, the 5 min during tone presentation, and the 2 min post-tone. Data for NORT, CB probe, and CB reversal probe tests were analysed using single-sample t-tests comparing data to the chance level for each test (; ; ). The chance level for NORT is 50% (1/2 objects), and for CB, it is 12.5% (1/8 zones). Data were presented as mean ± SEMs, and differences were regarded as statistically significant if p < 0.05.

Exclusions: FC: one WT CBD-treated mouse was excluded due to high baseline freezing (>2.5 SDs above the mean for that group). CB: three mice (1x WT VEH, 2x APPxPS1 CBD) were excluded from the CB analysis as their latency to find the food reward did not decrease across days (i.e., stayed at 120 s for the 7 days of training), so they did not engage with the paradigm.

3 Results

3.1 Fear conditioning

There were no “genotype” or “treatment” differences in baseline freezing during conditioning (i.e., the first 2 min of the test), indicating baseline genotype or treatment differences did not confound the interpretation of subsequent analyses (all “treatment” and “genotype” p-values > 0.05; Table 1). During acquisition of fear conditioning, all mice increased their freezing behaviour as the test progressed, indicating acquisition of the tone-shock association [“minutes” F (6,306) = 40.3, p < 0.0001]. Although there was no overall effect of “treatment” on freezing [F (1,52) = 1.0, p = 0.3; no “treatment” interactions, all p-values > 0.05], a “minutes” by “genotype” interaction was detected [F (6,306) = 2.5, p = 0.02]. However, when split by “genotype”, both genotypes increased their freezing as the test progressed, irrespective of CBD treatment (all “time” p-values < 0.0001, no main “treatment” main effects, or interactions with ‘treatment’) (Figures 1A,B).

TABLE 1

Freezing during fear conditioning. Percentage of freezing within each time block [%] during the first 2 min on conditioning day and during the cue test.

Measure WT VEH WT CBD APPxPS1 VEH APPxPS1 CBD
Baseline freezing (first 2 min of conditioning) 1.00 ± 0.42 1.25 ± 0.50 0.58 ± 0.25 1.83 ± 1.08
Cue test: freezing pre-cue 17.92 ± 2.33 25.25 ± 4.92 17.25 ± 3.08 19.25 ± 4.83
Cue test: freezing during cue 22.37 ± 3.87 27.53 ± 4.13 29.40 ± 4.13 22.30 ± 3.73
Cue test: freezing post-cue 16.5 ± 4.00 24.58 ± 4.75 24.58 ± 4.75 13.92 ± 2.42

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fphar-13-931384-g001.jpg

Freezing time [s] during (A,B) acquisition of fear conditioning, (C,D) context test, and (E,F) cue test in APPxPS1 and WT female mice treated daily with 20 mg/kg CBD or VEH for 8 months. Interactions were present in (A, B) between “minutes” × “genotype” (p = 0.02) and in (E,F) between “minutes” × “treatment” (p = 0.02). Data were analysed using three-way RM ANOVA and presented as mean ± SEM in separate graphs for visual clarity. N = 14 WT VEH, 16 APPxPS1 VEH, 14 WT CBD, and 13 APPxPS1 CBD. Abbreviations: APPxPS1: amyloid precursor protein x presenilin 1; CBD: cannabidiol; VEH: vehicle; WT: wildtype-like.

In the context test, there were no effects of “genotype” [F (1,51) = 0.7, p = 0.4] or “treatment” [F (1,51) = 2.3, p = 0.1] on freezing in the shock-associated environment, and no interactions were detected (all p-values > 0.05) (Figures 1C,D). All mice, regardless of treatment or genotype, showed higher levels of freezing earlier in the test, which decreased as the test progressed [“minutes” F (6,306) = 6.8, p < 0.0001; no interactions] (Figures 1C,D).

During the cue test, there were no overall effects of “genotype” [F (1,51) = 0.1, p = 0.9] or “treatment” [F (1,51) = 0.1, p = 0.8]. There was an interaction between “minutes” × “treatment” [F (8,408) = 2.2, p = 0.02], suggesting CBD-treated animals froze less than VEH-treated animals, particularly in the 2nd half of the test, although follow-up analyses splitting by corresponding factors revealed no further significant differences (all p-values > 0.1) (Figures 1E,F). When data were analysed according to total time spent freezing pre-cue, during cue presentation, and post-cue, there were no effects of “genotype” or “treatment” and no interactions (all p-values > 0.05, Table 2).

TABLE 2

Open arm measures in the elevated plus maze test. Open arm entries [n] and the open arm distance ratio [%] in WT and APPxPS1 mice, following chronic treatment with a vehicle or 20 mg/kg CBD. Data presented as mean ± SEM.

Measure WT VEH WT CBD APPxPS1 VEH APPxPS1 CBD
Open arm entries [n] 4.57 ± 1.48 3.93 ± 1.19 2.47 ± 0.67 2.08 ± 0.79
Open arm distance ratio [%] 5.25 ± 2.02 9.73 ± 3.1 8 ± 4.31 5.66 ± 3.15

3.2 Cheeseboard

 

3.2.1 Acquisition

Averaging latency to find the food reward from all three trials on each day, we found that all experimental groups reduced their latency during acquisition, indicating they learnt the location of the food reward [“days” F (6,294) = 102.1, p < 0.0001]. Generally, APPxPS1 mice had longer latencies than WT mice [“genotype” F (1,49) = 5.7, p = 0.02]. The latency improved across days to match control levels by the last 2 days of training [“days” × “genotype” F (6,294) = 2.5, p = 0.02]. CBD treatment did not influence the average latency to find the food reward during acquisition [“treatment” F (1,49) = 3.1, p = 0.09; no “treatment” interactions]. We explored these data further with two-way ANOVA split by “genotype”, which showed longer latencies in VEH-treated APPxPS1 mice than CBD-treated APPxPS1 mice [“treatment” F (1,24) = 5.1, p = 0.03] but not in WT mice [F (1,25) = 0.1, p = 0.9] (Figures 2A,B). Follow-up analyses split by “treatment” in WT mice revealed no further significant differences (all p-values > 0.1).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fphar-13-931384-g002.jpg

Long-term CBD improves average latency, intermediate-term memory latency, and speed during cheeseboard acquisition in APPxPS1 female mice. Latency [s] and speed [m/s] when finding the food reward in the cheeseboard in APPxPS1 and WT mice treated daily with 20 mg/kg CBD for 8 months. (A,B) Average latency [s] to find the food reward (averaged across 3 trials per day) during acquisition of the cheeseboard task. (C,D) Intermediate-term memory latency [s] (i.e., average latency for trials 2 and 3 of each day) during acquisition. (E,F) Average speed [m/s] (averaged across three trials per day) during cheeseboard acquisition. The dotted line in (A–D) indicates the 20-s cut-off threshold for acquisition. In (A,B), a “days” × “genotype” interaction (p = 0.02) was detected, and in (C,D), a “days“ × “genotype” interaction (p = 0.004) was detected. In (E,F), a “days“ × “treatment” interaction was detected; when split by “treatment,” there was a “days” × “genotype” interaction (p = 0.02) in VEH-treated mice. Splitting by “day” confirmed “genotype” differences on days 1–3 (p-values < 0.02). Data analysed using three-way RM ANOVA and presented as mean ± SEM in separate graphs for visual clarity. When data were split by the corresponding factor, significant “treatment” effects in APPxPS1 mice are indicated by hash symbols (# p < 0.05); interactions between “treatment” and “days” are indicated by ‘$’ ($ p < 0.05; $$ p < 0.01). N = 13 WT VEH, 16 APPxPS1 VEH, 14 WT CBD, and 10 APPxPS1 CBD. Abbreviations: APPxPS1: amyloid precursor protein x presenilin 1; CB: cheeseboard; CBD: cannabidiol; ITM: intermediate-term memory; VEH: vehicle; WT: wildtype-like.

Similarly, examination of intermediate-term memory revealed that APPxPS1 mice had longer latencies than WT mice [“genotype” F (1,49) = 8.0, p = 0.007], which was more prominent earlier in acquisition [“days” × “genotype” F (6,294) = 3.2, p = 0.004]. Overall, CBD had no effect on intermediate-term memory [“treatment” [F (1,49) = 2.8, p = 0.1; no “treatment” interactions]. Split by “genotype,” CBD reduced intermediate-term memory latencies specifically in APPxPS1 mice [“treatment” F (1,24) = 4.6, p = 0.04] but not in WT mice [F (1,25) = 0.1, p = 0.9] (Figures 2C,D). Follow-up ANOVA split by “days” revealed no further significant differences (all p-values > 0.1). Long-term memory was not different between the genotypes or treatment groups (all “genotype” or “treatment” main effects and interaction p-values > 0.05, Supplementary Figures S1A,B).

The speed of mice was also assessed. APPxPS1 mice were slower than WT controls across days [“days” × “genotype” F (6,294) = 2.6, p = 0.02], and CBD treatment affected speed as well [“days” × “treatment” F (6,294) = 3.2, p = 0.005] (Figures 2E,F). Split by “genotype,” in APPxPS1 mice, there was a “days” × “treatment” interaction [F (6,144) = 3.4, p = 0.003], suggesting APPxPS1 VEH mice were slower than CBD-treated APPxPS1 mice in the first half of acquisition, but APPxPS1 VEH mice were faster than APPxPS1 CBD mice by the end of training (Figure 2F). We split by “day” and confirmed “treatment” effects on day 1 only (p = 0.02). Similarly, split by “treatment”, VEH-treated APPxPS1 mice were initially slower than VEH-treated WT mice, but this reached WT levels by mid-training [“genotype” F (1,27) = 5.6, p = 0.03; “days” × “genotype” F (6,162) = 2.6, p = 0.02]. Splitting by “day” confirmed “genotype” differences on days 1–3 (p-values < 0.02). This speed difference was not evident in CBD-treated APPxPS1 mice (no “genotype” or “days” × “genotype” interaction, all p-values > 0.2). APPxPS1 VEH mice were slower than WT VEH or APPxPS1 CBD mice only on days 1–3 of acquisition (Figures 2E,F). No other significant differences were detected.

The distance travelled during acquisition is presented in the Supplementary Results section (see also Supplementary Figure S1).

 

3.2.2 Probe

At probe, all groups spent more time in the target zone than by chance [WT VEH: t = 2.7, df = 12, p = 0.03; APPxPS1 VEH: t = 3.8, df = 15, p = 0.002; WT CBD: t = 2.4, df = 13, p = 0.03; APPxPS1 CBD: t = 2.4, df = 9, p = 0.04] (Figure 3A).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fphar-13-931384-g003.jpg

No effect of long-term CBD on recall of spatial memory. Percentage [%] of time spent in the target zone at A probe test in APPxPS1 and WT mice treated daily with 20 mg/kg CBD for 8 months. Data were analysed using a single sample t-test against chance levels, i.e., 12.5%, corresponding to 1/8 zones. Data presented as mean ± SEM. Significant t-tests against chance are indicated by asterisks (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01). N = 13 WT VEH, 16 APPxPS1 VEH, 14 WT CBD, and 10 APPxPS1 CBD. Abbreviations: APPxPS1: amyloid precursor protein x presenilin 1; CBD: cannabidiol; VEH: vehicle; WT: wildtype-like.

Data for reversal learning and reversal probe are presented in the Supplementary Results section (see also Supplementary Figures S2–S4).

3.3 EPM

APPxPS1 mice showed more anxiety-like behaviour in the EPM, evidenced by a reduced percentage of time spent in the open arms [“genotype” F (1,51) = 4.3, p = 0.04] (Figure 4A). “CBD treatment” did not affect the percentage of open arm time [“treatment” F (1,51) = 0.09, p = 0.8; no interaction]. Open arm entries and open arm distance ratios were unaffected by the “genotype” or “treatment” (all main effect and interaction p-values > 0.05; Table 2). Although there was no overall effect of the “genotype” or “treatment” on the total distance travelled in the EPM, a “genotype” x “treatment” interaction [F (1,51) = 9.2, p = 0.004] indicates chronic CBD increased locomotion in APPxPS1 mice but not in WT mice (Figure 4B). This was confirmed when data were split by the “genotype”: CBD increased locomotion in APPxPS1 mice [“treatment” F (1,25) = 7.9, p = 0.009] but not WT mice [“treatment” F (1.26) = 2.4, p =0 .1]. Also, when data were split by “treatment,” there was a main effect of the “genotype” in CBD-treated mice [F (1,24) = 6.1, p = 0.02] but not VEH-treated mice [F (1,27) = 3.4, p = 0.08], suggesting greater distance travelled in CBD-treated APPxPS1 mice than CBD-treated WT mice (Figure 4B).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fphar-13-931384-g004.jpg

Increased locomotion but unaltered anxiety-like behaviour in APPxPS1 mice in the elevated plus maze test, following long-term CBD. (A) Distance travelled [m] and (B) percentage of open arm time [%] in the elevated plus maze test in APPxPS1 and WT mice treated daily with 20 mg/kg CBD for 8 months. A main effect of “genotype” (p = 0.04) was detected in (A). A “genotype” x “treatment” interaction (p = 0.004) was detected in (B). Data were analysed using two-way RM ANOVA and presented as mean ± SEM. When data were split by the corresponding factor, significant “genotype” effects in CBD-treated mice are indicated by asterisks (*p < 0.05, vs. WT CBD), and significant “treatment” effects in APPxPS1 mice are indicated by hash symbols (# p < 0.05, vs. APPxPS1 VEH). N = 14 WT VEH, 15 APPxPS1 VEH, 14 WT CBD, and 12 APPxPS1 CBD. Abbreviations: APPxPS1: amyloid precursor protein x presenilin 1; CBD: cannabidiol; VEH: vehicle; WT: wildtype-like.

3.4 NORT

The NORT data are presented in Supplementary Figure S5 as WT VEH-treated mice did not demonstrate novel object recognition (i.e. > 50% time nosing the novel object) [see a similar lack of object preference: ()] despite this protocol producing significant object novelty recognition in female APPxPS1 mice previously in our laboratory ().

4 Discussion

In the current study, we found that long-term preventative oral CBD improved spatial memory acquisition, which was accompanied by changes to speed and locomotion in female APPxPS1 mice. No effects of CBD treatment were detected on reversal learning or the recall of previously rewarded locations in AD transgenic mice. CBD reduced freezing, following the presentation of a discrete cue associated with footshock in both genotypes. Long-term CBD increased the distance travelled in the EPM in APPxPS1 females but did not affect anxiety-like behaviours in either genotype.

In the CB task, CBD improved the spatial learning of AD transgenic females. APPxPS1 VEH mice had longer average and intermediate-term memory latencies to find the reward location than APPxPS1 CBD mice. This effect was not evident in WT mice, suggesting CBD improved spatial learning specifically in AD-affected APPxPS1 mice but not at baseline (i.e., WT mice), potentially aligning with its low side effect profile (). Interestingly, CBD increased speed and distance travelled by APPxPS1 mice in the early phases of CB learning (i.e., days 1–3), suggesting effects of CBD on spatial task acquisition may be linked to improved motor function. However, improved locomotion cannot account for all the spatial learning effects observed, as by the end of acquisition APPxPS1 VEH mice had similar speed yet still slower latencies than APPxPS1 CBD mice, suggesting APPxPS1 CBD mice moved more directly to the rewarded location rather than simply moving faster. Strengthening this argument, slower reversal latencies in APPxPS1 mice also did not correspond with slower speed.

The effects of CBD on motor function require further clarification as the CB and EPM are not traditionally utilised as primary measures for locomotor ability. There are currently no reports of improved locomotor activity by chronic CBD in mouse models of dementia (, , , ; ; ; ), and indeed, inconsistent effects of acute and chronic CBD on locomotor activity across a variety of neurological models have been found (reviewed in ). Interestingly, locomotor impairment can occur in some individuals with AD () and may be linked to PS1 mutations (), which may explain some of the locomotor changes observed here in APPxPS1 mice.

Despite improvements in spatial learning, CBD had no effect on the recall of spatial learning at probe or reversal probe. This reflects previous reports where chronic CBD did not affect spatial memory recall in the CB (; ). We also found no effect of CBD on reversal learning, suggesting oral preventive CBD may not improve performance once the task has been learnt and suggesting only specific cognitive domains may be ameliorated by preventative oral CBD.

The finding of improved spatial learning by CBD is similar to other reports investigating remedial CBD treatment in AD mouse models (i.e., treatment started after spatial learning deficits were present; ; ; ; ). Importantly, ours is the first study to show that long-term CBD can prevent the development of some spatial learning deficits in female AD transgenic mice, suggesting CBD may have the potential to prevent cognitive impairment in both men () and women. Considering a preventative approach may limit the development or severity of AD pathology and symptoms, our results demonstrate some utility of preventive CBD, although the moderate nature of our findings suggests that preventive CBD may not be as effective as remedial CBD (see ; ; ; ; ). It is also possible that a higher preventive oral CBD dose may have resulted in more pronounced effects on spatial learning. Nonetheless, by using an oral route of CBD administration in this study and previous work (), we provide data which are highly clinically relevant as oral administration is clinically preferable to intravenous or intramuscular injections, and using an oral route significantly boosts the translational power of our findings.

Long-term oral CBD treatment reduced freezing in the cue test of all females, regardless of the genotype. Although it is well established that acute systemic CBD can impair fear memory consolidation (; ; review: ), including in female mice (), effects of chronic CBD on fear memory have had limited investigation, and chronic CBD does not affect fear memory acquisition (; ). Considering CBD-induced differences in freezing were very limited in this study, future research should consider evaluating the effects of long-term CBD on fear learning in female mice.

Chronic CBD had no effect on anxiety-like behaviours in the EPM, and this corresponds with previous reports. Although the anxiolytic-like effects of acute systemic CBD are well established [reviews: (; )], the anxiolytic-like effects of chronic CBD are less clear. Chronic low-dose CBD (up to 30 mg/kg) does not affect anxiety-like behaviour in the EPM in APPxPS1 male mice (; ) or in outbred rats and mice (; ; ). However, high-dose chronic CBD (30-100 mg/kg i. p. or subcutaneous, s. c.) can decrease anxiety-like behaviour in the EPM in mice (; ; ). It is possible that higher doses of CBD are necessary for anxiolytic-like effects, following long-term administration. Also, most studies use systemic injections (i.p. or s.c.) to evaluate the anxiolytic effects of CBD (; ; ; ; ; ), and it is unknown if the oral route may alter CBD’s effects on anxiety-like behaviour.

The mechanisms by which CBD exerts pro-cognitive effects are poorly understood, but recent reports suggest potential mechanisms. Chronic CBD can enhance the immune response and increase hippocampal autophagy in APPxPS1 mice (). An enhanced immune response by CBD may also drive increased microglial migration and reduced nitrite generation (), which can facilitate Aβ phagocytosis and decrease hippocampal Aβ plaque load, thus improving cognition in APPxPS1 mice (; ). Alternatively, it is possible that CBD ameliorates hippocampal synaptic plasticity deficits to improve spatial learning as CBD pretreatment prevents Aβ1–42-mediated LTP deficits in mouse hippocampal slices (). Examining the brain pathology in these mice to determine the mechanism/s of CBD in this instance would be a valuable focus for future research studies.

It is possible there are sex differences in the effects of CBD on cognition in APPxPS1 mice. In the present study, long-term CBD reversed spatial learning impairment in female APPxPS1 mice, while in male APPxPS1 mice, long-term CBD reversed social recognition impairment (). It should be noted that male and female APPxPS1 mice show deficits in different cognitive behavioural domains (; ; ), and this is why the behavioural tests conducted in the present study were not identical to those conducted in male APPxPS1 mice treated with long-term oral CBD (). Nonetheless, it is possible that CBD could have sex-specific effects on cognition, and this may be related to sex-specific differences in hippocampal dendritic spine density. Hippocampal dendritic spine density is reduced in female APPxPS1 mice compared to WT female mice, where this effect is not as pronounced in male APPxPS1 mice (). Dendritic spine density is associated with spatial memory function (), and CBD can ameliorate stress-induced reductions in the hippocampal spine density in mice (). Thus, in female APPxPS1 mice, CBD may increase the hippocampal dendritic spine density to improve spatial memory.

A final consideration for the current study is that of the administration route. This study and others () gave 20 mg/kg CBD orally, whereas other work has administered 20 mg/kg CBD i. p. (). In mice, i. p. administration leads to a faster peak brain concentration of CBD than oral administration (), and the plasma concentration of i. v. CBD is consistently higher than oral CBD for up to 24 h post-administration (). The bioavailability of i. v. or i. p. CBD is close to 100% (; ), whereas oral CBD is 8.6% (). This suggests a faster and more potent effect of i. p. CBD than oral CBD even at the same CBD dose, which may explain why the effects of oral CBD are not as pronounced as for i. p. CBD, e.g., i. p. CBD reversed both object and social memory impairment in male APPxPS1 mice (), but oral CBD only reversed social memory impairment in male mice ().

In conclusion, we found moderate effects of long-term oral CBD treatment on the acquisition of spatial learning by CBD in a female mouse model of familial AD. This suggests that preventive CBD may help limit some cognitive impairment in women with AD.

Acknowledgments

We thank JacKee Low and Warren Logge (Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, Australia) for assisting in the treatment of our test mice and the staff of Australian BioResources and Adam Bryan at Neuroscience Research Australia for taking care of our test mice. We thank Jerry Tanda for critical comments on the manuscript.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The animal study was reviewed and approved by the University of New South Wales Animal Care and Ethics Committee.

Author contributions

DC and TK designed the research. DC ran all the experiments. DC, RC, and CS conducted the data analysis. RC wrote the manuscript. RC and TK edited the manuscript.

Funding

TK was supported by two project grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC: #1102012 and #1141789) and the NHMRC dementia research team initiative (#1095215). RC and TK were supported by the Ainsworth Medical Research Innovation Fund. In addition, RC was supported by the Rebecca Cooper Medical Research Foundation (Project Grant PG2020883). DC received an Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship from the University of New South Wales and a supplementary scholarship provided by Neuroscience Research Australia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling editor HL declared a past collaboration with the author TK.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.931384/full#supplementary-material.

References

  • Amini M., Abdolmaleki Z. (2022). The effect of cannabidiol coated by nano-chitosan on learning and memory, hippocampal CB1 and CB2 levels, and amyloid plaques in an Alzheimer’s disease rat model. Neuropsychobiology 81 (3), 171–183. 10.1159/000519534 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Aso E., Sanchez-Pla A., Vegas-Lozano E., Maldonado R., Ferrer I. (2015). Cannabis-based medicine reduces multiple pathological processes in AβPP/PS1 mice. J. Alzheimers Dis. 43, 977–991. 10.3233/JAD-141014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Blessing E. M., Steenkamp M. M., Manzanares J., Marmar C. R. (2015). Cannabidiol as a potential treatment for anxiety disorders. Neurotherapeutics 12, 825–836. 10.1007/s13311-015-0387-1 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Bloom G. S. (2014). Amyloid-beta and tau: The trigger and bullet in alzheimer disease pathogenesis. JAMA Neurol. 71, 505–508. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.5847 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Borchelt D. R., Ratovitski T., van Lare J., Lee M. K., Gonzales V., Jenkins N. A., et al. (1997). Accelerated amyloid deposition in the brains of transgenic mice coexpressing mutant presenilin 1 and amyloid precursor proteins. Neuron 19 (4), 939–945. 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80974-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Braak H., Braak E. (1991). Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol. 82, 239–259. 10.1007/BF00308809 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Calapai F., Cardia L., Calapai G., Di Mauro D., Trimarchi F., Ammendolia I., et al. (2022). Effects of cannabidiol on locomotor activity. Life (Basel) 12 (5), 652. 10.3390/life12050652 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Campos A. C., Fogaca M. V., Sonego A. B., Guimaraes F. S. (2016). Cannabidiol, neuroprotection and neuropsychiatric disorders. Pharmacol. Res. 112, 119–127. 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.01.033 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Cao D., Lu H., Lewis T. L., Li L. (2007). Intake of sucrose-sweetened water induces insulin resistance and exacerbates memory deficits and amyloidosis in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer disease. J. Biol. Chem. 282 (50), 36275–36282. 10.1074/jbc.M703561200 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Chen Z., Zhong C. (2014). Oxidative stress in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci. Bull. 30, 271–281. 10.1007/s12264-013-1423-y [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Cheng D., Logge W., Low J. K., Garner B., Karl T. (2013). Novel behavioural characteristics of the APP(Swe)/PS1ΔE9 transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Behav. Brain Res. 245, 120–127. 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.02.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Cheng D., Low J. K., Logge W., Garner B., Karl T. (2014a). Chronic cannabidiol treatment improves social and object recognition in double transgenic APPswe/PS1E9 mice. Psychopharmacol. Berl. 231, 3009–3017. 10.1007/s00213-014-3478-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Cheng D., Low J. K., Logge W., Garner B., Karl T. (2014b). Novel behavioural characteristics of female APPSwe/PS1ΔE9 double transgenic mice. Behav. Brain Res. 260, 111–118. 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.11.046 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Cheng D., Spiro A. S., Jenner A. M., Garner B., Karl T. (2014c). Long-term cannabidiol treatment prevents the development of social recognition memory deficits in Alzheimer’s disease transgenic mice. J. Alzheimers Dis. 42, 1383–1396. 10.3233/JAD-140921 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Coles M., Watt G., Kreilaus F., Karl T. (2020). Medium-dose chronic cannabidiol treatment reverses object recognition memory deficits of APP Swe /PS1ΔE9 transgenic female mice. Front. Pharmacol. 11, 587604. 10.3389/fphar.2020.587604 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • de Paula Faria D., Estessi de Souza L., Duran F. L. S., Buchpiguel C. A., Britto L. R., Crippa J. A. S., et al. (2022). Cannabidiol treatment improves glucose metabolism and memory in streptozotocin-induced Alzheimer’s disease rat model: A proof-of-concept study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23 (3), 1076. 10.3390/ijms23031076 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Deiana S., Watanabe A., Yamasaki Y., Amada N., Arthur M., Fleming S., et al. (2012). Plasma and brain pharmacokinetic profile of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarine (CBDV), Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) and cannabigerol (CBG) in rats and mice following oral and intraperitoneal administration and CBD action on obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Psychopharmacol. Berl. 219, 859–873. 10.1007/s00213-011-2415-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Dere E., Huston J. P., De Souza Silva M. A. (2007). The pharmacology, neuroanatomy and neurogenetics of one-trial object recognition in rodents. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 31, 673–704. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.01.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Esposito G., De Filippis D., Carnuccio R., Izzo A. A., Iuvone T. (2006a). The marijuana component cannabidiol inhibits beta-amyloid-induced tau protein hyperphosphorylation through Wnt/beta-catenin pathway rescue in PC12 cells. J. Mol. Med. 84, 253–258. 10.1007/s00109-005-0025-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Esposito G., De Filippis D., Maiuri M. C., De Stefano D., Carnuccio R., Iuvone T. (2006b). Cannabidiol inhibits inducible nitric oxide synthase protein expression and nitric oxide production in beta-amyloid stimulated PC12 neurons through p38 MAP kinase and NF-kappaB involvement. Neurosci. Lett. 399, 91–95. 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.01.047 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Esposito G., Scuderi C., Savani C., Steardo L., Jr., De Filippis D., Cottone P., et al. (2007). Cannabidiol in vivo blunts beta-amyloid induced neuroinflammation by suppressing IL-1beta and iNOS expression. Br. J. Pharmacol. 151, 1272–1279. 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707337 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Fogaca M. V., Campos A. C., Coelho L. D., Duman R. S., Guimaraes F. S. (2018). The anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol in chronically stressed mice are mediated by the endocannabinoid system: Role of neurogenesis and dendritic remodeling. Neuropharmacology 135, 22–33. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.03.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Gall Z., Farkas S., Albert A., Ferencz E., Vancea S., Urkon M., et al. (2020). Effects of chronic cannabidiol treatment in the rat chronic unpredictable mild stress model of depression. Biomolecules 10, E801. 10.3390/biom10050801 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Garcia-Baos A., Puig-Reyne X., Garcia-Algar O., Valverde O. (2021). Cannabidiol attenuates cognitive deficits and neuroinflammation induced by early alcohol exposure in a mice model. Biomed. Pharmacother. 141, 111813. 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111813 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Gaston T. E., Szaflarski J. P. (2018). Cannabis for the treatment of epilepsy: An update. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 18 (11), 73. 10.1007/s11910-018-0882-y [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Gella A., Durany N. (2009). Oxidative stress in Alzheimer disease. Cell adh. Migr. 3, 88–93. 10.4161/cam.3.1.7402 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Gu L., Guo Z. (2013). Alzheimer’s Aβ42 and Aβ40 peptides form interlaced amyloid fibrils. J. Neurochem. 126, 305–311. 10.1111/jnc.12202 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Han X., Song X., Song D., Xie G., Guo H., Wu N., et al. (2022). Comparison between cannabidiol and sertraline for the modulation of post-traumatic stress disorder-like behaviors and fear memory in mice. Psychopharmacol. Berl. 239 (5), 1605–1620. 10.1007/s00213-022-06132-6 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Hao F., Feng Y. (2021). Cannabidiol (CBD) enhanced the hippocampal immune response and autophagy of APP/PS1 Alzheimer’s mice uncovered by RNA-seq. Life Sci. 264, 118624. 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118624 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Holmes C. (2013). Review: Systemic inflammation and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 39, 51–68. 10.1111/j.1365-2990.2012.01307.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Hughes B., Herron C. E. (2019). Cannabidiol reverses deficits in hippocampal LTP in a model of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurochem. Res. 44, 703–713. 10.1007/s11064-018-2513-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Iuvone T., Esposito G., Esposito R., Santamaria R., Di Rosa M., Izzo A. A. (2004). Neuroprotective effect of cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component from Cannabis sativa, on beta-amyloid-induced toxicity in PC12 cells. J. Neurochem. 89, 134–141. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2003.02327.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Janefjord E., Maag J. L., Harvey B. S., Smid S. D. (2014). Cannabinoid effects on beta amyloid fibril and aggregate formation, neuronal and microglial-activated neurotoxicity in vitro . Cell. Mol. Neurobiol. 34, 31–42. 10.1007/s10571-013-9984-x [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Jiao S. S., Bu X. L., Liu Y. H., Zhu C., Wang Q. H., Shen L. L., et al. (2016). Sex dimorphism profile of Alzheimer’s disease-type pathologies in an APP/PS1 mouse model. Neurotox. Res. 29, 256–266. 10.1007/s12640-015-9589-x [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Karl T., Garner B., Cheng D. (2017). The therapeutic potential of the phytocannabinoid cannabidiol for Alzheimer’s disease. Behav. Pharmacol. 28, 142–160. 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000247 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Khodadadi H., Salles E. L., Jarrahi A., Costigliola V., Khan M. B., Yu J. C. (2021). Cannabidiol ameliorates cognitive function via regulation of IL-33 and TREM2 upregulation in a murine model of Alzheimer’s disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 80 (3), 973–977. 10.3233/JAD-210026 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Kreilaus F., Chesworth R., Eapen V., Clarke R., Karl T. (2019). First behavioural assessment of a novel Immp2l knockdown mouse model with relevance for Gilles de la Tourette syndrome and Autism spectrum disorder. Behav. Brain Res. 374, 112057. 10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112057 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Kreilaus F., Przybyla M., Ittner L., Karl T. (2022). Cannabidiol (CBD) treatment improves spatial memory in 14-month-old female TAU58/2 transgenic mice. Behav. Brain Res. 425, 113812. 10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113812 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Laws K. R., Irvine K., Gale T. M. (2018). Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 31, 133–139. 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000401 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Lee J., Howard R. S., Schneider L. S. (2022). The current landscape of prevention trials in dementia. Neurotherapeutics 19 (1), 228–247. 10.1007/s13311-022-01236-5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Long L. E., Chesworth R., Huang X. F., Wong A., Spiro A., Mcgregor I. S., et al. (2012). Distinct neurobehavioural effects of cannabidiol in transmembrane domain neuregulin 1 mutant mice. PLoS One 7, e34129. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034129 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Mahmmoud R. R., Sase S., Aher Y. D., Sase A., Groger M., Mokhtar M., et al. (2015). Spatial and working memory is linked to spine density and mushroom spines. PLoS One 10, e0139739. 10.1371/journal.pone.0139739 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Martin-Moreno A. M., Reigada D., Ramirez B. G., Mechoulam R., Innamorato N., Cuadrado A., et al. (2011). Cannabidiol and other cannabinoids reduce microglial activation in vitro and in vivo: Relevance to Alzheimer’s disease. Mol. Pharmacol. 79, 964–973. 10.1124/mol.111.071290 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • McGeer P. L., Rogers J., Mcgeer E. G. (2016). Inflammation, antiinflammatory agents, and Alzheimer’s disease: The last 22 years. J. Alzheimers Dis. 54, 853–857. 10.3233/JAD-160488 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Medeiros A. M., Silva R. H. (2019). Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease: Where do we stand? J. Alzheimers Dis. 67, 35–60. 10.3233/JAD-180213 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Montgomery K. C. (1955). The relation between fear induced by novel stimulation and exploratory behavior. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 48, 254–260. 10.1037/h0043788 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Montoya Z. T., Uhernik A. L., Smith J. P. (2020). Comparison of cannabidiol to citalopram in targeting fear memory in female mice. J. Cannabis Res. 2 (1), 48. 10.1186/s42238-020-00055-9 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Murphy M., Mills S., Winstone J., Leishman E., Wager-Miller J., Bradshaw H., et al. (2017). Chronic adolescent d9-tetrahydrocannabinol treatment of male mice leads to long-term cognitive and behavioral dysfunction, which are prevented by concurrent cannabidiol treatment. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2, 235–246. 10.1089/can.2017.0034 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Osborne A. L., Solowij N., Babic I., Huang X. F., Weston-Green K. (2017). Improved social interaction, recognition and working memory with cannabidiol treatment in a prenatal infection (poly I:C) rat model. Neuropsychopharmacology 42 (7), 1447–1457. 10.1038/npp.2017.40 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Osborne A. L., Solowij N., Babic I., Lum J. S., Huang X. F., Newell K. A., et al. (2019). Cannabidiol improves behavioural and neurochemical deficits in adult female offspring of the maternal immune activation (poly I:C) model of neurodevelopmental disorders. Brain Behav. Immun. 81, 574–587. 10.1016/j.bbi.2019.07.018 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Patra P. H., Serafeimidou-Pouliou E., Bazelot M., Whalley B. J., Williams C. M., Mcneish A. J. (2020). Cannabidiol improves survival and behavioural co-morbidities of Dravet syndrome in mice. Br. J. Pharmacol. 177, 2779–2792. 10.1111/bph.15003 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Reiserer R. S., Harrison F. E., Syverud D. C., McDonald M. P. (2007). Impaired spatial learning in the APPSwe + PSEN1DeltaE9 bigenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Genes Brain Behav. 6 (1), 54–65. 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00221.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Richetin K., Petsophonsakul P., Roybon L., Guiard B. P., Rampon C. (2017). Differential alteration of hippocampal function and plasticity in females and males of the APPxPS1 mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging 57, 220–231. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.025 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Rivers-Auty J., Mather A. E., Peters R., Lawrence C. B., Brough D. (2020). Anti-inflammatories in Alzheimer’s disease-potential therapy or spurious correlate? Brain Commun. 2, fcaa109. 10.1093/braincomms/fcaa109 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Ryan N. S., Nicholas J. M., Weston P. S. J., Liang Y., Lashley T., Guerreiro R., et al. (2016). Clinical phenotype and genetic associations in autosomal dominant familial Alzheimer’s disease: A case series. Lancet. Neurol. 15 (13), 1326–1335. 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30193-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Scarmeas N., Hadjigeorgiou G. M., Papadimitriou A., Dubois B., Sarazin M., Brandt J., et al. (2004). Motor signs during the course of Alzheimer disease. Neurology 63 (6), 975–982. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000138440.39918.0c [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Schiavon A. P., Bonato J. M., Milani H., Guimaraes F. S., Weffort De Oliveira R. M. (2016). Influence of single and repeated cannabidiol administration on emotional behavior and markers of cell proliferation and neurogenesis in non-stressed mice. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 64, 27–34. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2015.06.017 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Scuderi C., Filippis D. D., Iuvone T., Blasio A., Steardo A., Esposito G. (2009). Cannabidiol in medicine: A review of its therapeutic potential in CNS disorders. Phytother. Res. 23, 597–602. 10.1002/ptr.2625 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Scuderi C., Steardo L., Esposito G. (2014). Cannabidiol promotes amyloid precursor protein ubiquitination and reduction of beta amyloid expression in SHSY5YAPP+ cells through PPARγ involvement. Phytother. Res. 28, 1007–1013. 10.1002/ptr.5095 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Shallcross J., Hamor P., Bechard A. R., Romano M., Knackstedt L., Schwendt M. (2019). The divergent effects of CDPPB and cannabidiol on fear extinction and anxiety in a predator scent stress model of PTSD in rats. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 13, 91. 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00091 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Stern C. A. J., de Carvalho C. R., Bertoglio L. J., Takahashi R. N. (2018). Effects of cannabinoid drugs on aversive or rewarding drug-associated memory extinction and reconsolidation. Neuroscience 370, 62–80. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.07.018 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Taglialatela G., Hogan D., Zhang W. R., Dineley K. T. (2009). Intermediate- and long-term recognition memory deficits in Tg2576 mice are reversed with acute calcineurin inhibition. Behav. Brain Res. 200, 95–99. 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.12.034 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Thal D. R., Rub U., Orantes M., Braak H. (2002). Phases of A beta-deposition in the human brain and its relevance for the development of AD. Neurology 58, 1791–1800. 10.1212/wnl.58.12.1791 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Vallee A., Lecarpentier Y., Guillevin R., Vallee J. N. (2017). Effects of cannabidiol interactions with Wnt/β-catenin pathway and PPARγ on oxidative stress and neuroinflammation in Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin. 49, 853–866. 10.1093/abbs/gmx073 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Wang J., Tanila H., Puolivali J., Kadish I., Van Groen T. (2003). Gender differences in the amount and deposition of amyloidbeta in APPswe and PS1 double transgenic mice. Neurobiol. Dis. 14, 318–327. 10.1016/j.nbd.2003.08.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Watt G., Chesworth R., Przybyla M., Ittner A., Garner B., Ittner L. M., et al. (2020b). Chronic cannabidiol (CBD) treatment did not exhibit beneficial effects in 4-month-old male TAU58/2 transgenic mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 196, 172970. 10.1016/j.pbb.2020.172970 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Watt G., Karl T. (2017). In vivo evidence for therapeutic properties of cannabidiol (CBD) for Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Pharmacol. 8, 20. 10.3389/fphar.2017.00020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Watt G., Shang K., Zieba J., Olaya J., Li H., Garner B., et al. (2020a). Chronic treatment with 50 mg/kg cannabidiol improves cognition and moderately reduces Aβ40 levels in 12-month-old male AβPPswe/PS1ΔE9 transgenic mice. J. Alzheimers Dis. 74, 937–950. 10.3233/JAD-191242 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Wimo A., Ali G.-C., Guerchet M., Prince M., Prina M., Wu Y.-T. (2015). World alzheimer report 2015. The global impact of dementia. London, UK: Alzheimer’s Disease International. []
  • Wright M., Di Ciano P., Brands B. (2020). Use of cannabidiol for the treatment of anxiety: A short synthesis of pre-clinical and clinical evidence. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 5, 191–196. 10.1089/can.2019.0052 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Xu C., Chang T., Du Y., Yu C., Tan X., Li X. (2019). Pharmacokinetics of oral and intravenous cannabidiol and its antidepressant-like effects in chronic mild stress mouse model. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70, 103202. 10.1016/j.etap.2019.103202 [PubMed] [CrossRef] []
  • Zgair A., Wong J. C., Lee J. B., Mistry J., Sivak O., Wasan K. M., et al. (2016). Dietary fats and pharmaceutical lipid excipients increase systemic exposure to orally administered cannabis and cannabis-based medicines. Am. J. Transl. Res. 8, 3448–3459. [PMC free article] [PubMed] []
Articles from Frontiers in Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

Leave a Reply