Dietary supplementation with coenzyme Q10 improved behavioral performance. Tg19959 mice were fed for five months with control chow or chow supplemented with 2.4% CoQ10 (4800 mg/kg/day). For all measures in (A-E), number of mice used was: n = 6, CoQ10-fed Tg19959 (CoQ10); n = 12, control-fed Tg19959 (AβPP); n = 9, wild type littermate mice (WT). ANOVA with repetitive measurements were conducted for behavioral analyses. A) Open field test. Control-fed Tg19959 (AβPP) mice were hyperactive compared to wild-type (WT) mice when placed in the open field, as shown by the distance traveled each day (p = 0.01, AβPP versus WT). There was a trend for CoQ10-fed Tg19959 (CoQ10) mice to be similarly hyperactive compared to WT (CoQ10 versus WT, p = 0.30), but less so than control-fed Tg19959 mice (CoQ10 versus AβPP, p = 0.19). CoQ10-fed Tg19959 mice were able to habituate in the open field (note decrease in distance traveled on days 2 and 3 compared to day 1). In contrast, the control fed Tg19959 mice did not show any habituation. B) The Morris water maze was used to test spatial learning. Over the 5 day learning period with the hidden platform, control-fed Tg19959 mice (AβPP) performed worse than wild-type mice (WT) with respect to latency to reach platform, quadrants crossed, and distance traveled (p < 0.0001 for all measures). Performance of the CoQ10-fed Tg19959 mice was better than that of the control fed Tg19959 mice in all measures (latency, p = 0.0389; quadrants, p = 0.0014; distance, p = 0.0081), although not quite at the level of wild type mice (CoQ10 versus WT latency, p = 0.0227; quadrants, p = 0.1745; distance, p = 0.0978). C) Spatial memory was assessed 24 h after the acquisition period ended. The mice were released into the water maze with the platform removed (probe trial), and the percentage of time spent in the target quadrant was compared to that spent in the diagonally opposite quadrant. The control-fed mice Tg19959 mice showed no preference for the target quadrant; there was even a trend to prefer the opposite quadrant (p = 0.13). In contrast, the CoQ10-fed Tg19959 mice and the WT mice preferred the target over the opposite quadrant (p = 0.033 CoQ10; p = 0.0011 WT). (D) To ensure that CoQ10-supplementation did not confer a noncognitive advantage in swimming or vision, ability to reach a visible platform was measured. CoQ10fed Tg19959 mice did not reach the visible platform any better than the control-fed Tg19959 mice, with respect to latency (p = 0.514), quadrants crossed (p = 0.756), or distance traveled (p = 0.763). E) To assess motor coordination, latency to fall from a stationary beam was measured. CoQ10 did not confer an advantage in motor coordination (p = 0.77, CoQ10 versus AβPP). F) Aβ42 immunohistochemistry in 6 month old Tg19959 mice treated for 5 months with control chow or chow supplemented with 2.4% CoQ10. Representative coronal section through retrosplenial cortex and hippocampus are shown. Sections were stained with polyclonal antibody AB5078P directed against Aβ42. G) Quantification of percent area covered by plaque and plaque number per unit area in cortex and hippocampus. For each mouse, the plaque area and number were averaged over 5 sections, and the graphs show the means and standard errors of these averages over all mice. P-values were obtained by two-tailed unpaired t-test, n = 6 mice per group.