Metabolomic Profiling of Bile Acids in Clinical and Experimental Samples of Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain endogenous bile acids have been proposed as potential therapies for ameliorating Alzheimer's disease (AD) but their role, if any, in the pathophysiology of this disease is not currently known. Given recent evidence of bile acids having protective and anti-inflammatory effects on the brain, it is important to establish how AD affects levels of endogenous bile acids. Using LC-MS/MS, this study profiled 22 bile acids in brain extracts and blood plasma from AD patients (n = 10) and age-matched control subjects (n = 10). In addition, we also profiled brain/plasma samples from APP/PS1 and WT mice (aged 6 and 12 months). In human plasma, we detected significantly lower cholic acid (CA, p = 0.03) in AD patients than age-matched control subjects. In APP/PS1 mouse plasma we detected higher CA (p = 0.05, 6 months) and lower hyodeoxycholic acid (p = 0.04, 12 months) than WT. In human brain with AD pathology (Braak stages V-VI) taurocholic acid (TCA) were significantly lower (p = 0.01) than age-matched control subjects. In APP/PS1 mice we detected higher brain lithocholic acid (p = 0.05) and lower tauromuricholic acid (TMCA; p = 0.05, 6 months). TMCA was also decreased (p = 0.002) in 12-month-old APP/PS1 mice along with 5 other acids: CA (p = 0.02), β-muricholic acid (p = 0.02), Ω-muricholic acid (p = 0.05), TCA (p = 0.04), and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (p = 0.02). The levels of bile acids are clearly disturbed during the development of AD pathology and, since some bile acids are being proposed as potential AD therapeutics, we demonstrate a method that can be used to support work to advance bile acid therapeutics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".