Overexpression of NEP in hAPP-J20 mice does not prevent learning and memory deficits in the Morris water maze. C57BL/6J (A, C, E, G, I) and B6D2 (B, D, F, H, J) mice (n = 9–11 mice per genotype and background) were tested at 3–5 months of age. These groups of mice had no significant differences in swim speeds during the hidden platform training (data not shown). A, B, Compared with NTG and NEP mice, hAPP-J20 and hAPP-J20/NEP mice had significant and comparable learning impairments. In both strain backgrounds, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of hAPP on hidden platform performance (F(1,36) ≥ 40.4; p < 0.001), but no NEP effect or hAPP x NEP interaction. A significant main effect of hAPP (F(1,36) = 11.0; p < 0.01) was found in the visible platform task only on the C57BL/6J background (A). C–J, Probe trials at the beginning of the fourth day of training (C–F) and 16–18h after the last day of hidden platform training (G–J) revealed comparable impairments in hAPP-J20 and hAPP-J20/NEP mice relative to NTG and NEP mice. Target, adjacent (Adj) left (L) or right (R), and opposite (Opp) refer to quadrants (C, D, G, and H) or to the target platform and corresponding locations in the respective non-target quadrants (E, F, I and J). A two-way ANOVA identified a significant main effect of hAPP for the percent time spent in the target quadrant (C, D, H: F(1,36) ≥ 9.7, p < 0.01; G: F(1,36) = 6.3, p < 0.05) and for the number of target crossings (E, F, I: F(1,36) ≥ 17.7, p < 0.001; J: F(1,36) = 7.0, p < 0.05). There was no NEP effect or hAPP x NEP interaction. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs NTG controls; +p < 0.05 vs NTG and NEP controls (Fisher’s PLSD test). Values are means ± SEM.