GSK3 and p53 - is there a link in Alzheimer's disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that glycogen synthase kinase-3beta (GSK3beta) is implicated in both sporadic and familial forms of Alzheimer's disease. The transcription factor, p53 also plays a role and has been linked to an increase in tau hyperphosphorylation although the effect is indirect. There is also evidence that GSK3beta and p53 interact and that the activity of both proteins is increased as a result of this interaction. Under normal cellular conditions, p53 is kept at low levels by Mdm2 but when cells are stressed, p53 is stabilised and may then interact with GSK3beta. We propose that this interaction has an important contribution to cellular outcomes and to test this hypothesis we developed a stochastic simulation model. RESULTS: The model predicts that high levels of DNA damage leads to increased activity of p53 and GSK3beta and low levels of aggregation but if DNA damage is repaired, the aggregates are eventually cleared. The model also shows that over long periods of time, aggregates may start to form due to stochastic events leading to increased levels of ROS and damaged DNA. This is followed by increased activity of p53 and GSK3beta and a vicious cycle ensues. CONCLUSIONS: Since p53 and GSK3beta are both involved in the apoptotic pathway, and GSK3beta overactivity leads to increased levels of plaques and tangles, our model might explain the link between protein aggregation and neuronal loss in neurodegeneration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".