NGF-Cholinergic Dependency in Brain Aging, MCI and Alzheimers Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forebrain cholinergic neurons are highly dependent on nerve growth factor (NGF) for phenotype maintenance. We have established that in addition to "target-derived" NGF neurotrophic stimulation, cholinergic neurons also respond dose-dependently, to intra-parenchymal NGF administration in the somato-dendritic region of the nucleus Basalis, thus illustrating the potential of alternative reparative therapies which would by-pass the undesirable effects of diffuse neurotrophin application. Moreover, our lab has also observed that the steady-state number of cortical cholinergic synapses is dependent on continuous NGF supply, as anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies and TrkA receptor antagonists deplete pre-existing cholinergic bouton numbers. Furthermore, the application of either NGF or TrkA NGF-mimetic agonists successfully rescues the age-dependent loss of cortical cholinergic boutons in aged-impaired rats. The vulnerability of the cortical cholinergic system has also been demonstrated in transgenic animal models of the Alzheimer's disease (AD) amyloid pathology. It is of interest to note however, that an up-regulation of cholinergic presynaptic boutons has been observed in certain transgenic mouse models prior to plaque formation. This observation is similar to the visibly increased immunoreactivity of cortical and hippocampal choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) fibers in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). A series of ex-vivo experiments conducted by our group have demonstrated that contrary to popular belief, proNGF, as opposed to mature NGF, is released from the cerebral cortex in an activity-dependent manner. In addition, proNGF appears to be released with a series of pro-enzymes and enzymes, which are involved in its subsequent maturation to NGF and degradation in the extracellular space. Given that proNGF is known to be upregulated in AD patients a dysregulation in the maturation or degradation of mature NGF might explain the preferential vulnerability of the cholinergic system in the AD pathology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".