MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3112841125 · doi:10.1002/alz.040308

Synaptic stimulation protects against pathological tau by enhancing lysosomal degradation

2020· article· en· W3112841125 on OpenAlexaff
Yvette Akwa, Elise Gondard, Chiara Di Malta, Estibaliz Capetillo‐Zarate, Anne Boiret, Carlos Matute, Thomas Vaccari, Carmine Settembre, Andrés M. Lozano, E.E. Baulieu, Davide Tampellini

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulationNeuroscienceEntorhinal cortexAutophagyDeep brain stimulationSynapseBiologyCell biologyMedicineHippocampusInternal medicineParkinson's diseaseDiseaseBiochemistryApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Changes in synaptic excitability and reduced brain metabolism are among the earliest alterations associated with the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (Reiman et al., 2004; Sperling et al., 2009). Among different approaches for therapeutics, the stimulation of synaptic activity has been shown to be protective in models of AD, and deep brain stimulation (DBS) provides amelioration in AD patients (Sankar et al., 2015; Swaab and Bao, 2010; Tampellini, 2015). Such positive effects might reflect changes occurring at cellular levels when activity is induced, indicating that brain stimulation might promote cellular mechanisms correcting neuronal and synaptic dysfunctions. We have demonstrated that synaptic stimulation, via DBS or other methods, exerts protection in mouse models of AD and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) by enhancing autophagy, lysosomal degradation of pathologic tau, and protecting synapses (Akwa et al., 2018; Mann et al., 2018). Ongoing investigations are revealing the involvement of TFEB and its downstream genes in the enhancement of lysosomal activity upon stimulation. Method Synaptic activity was induced by electrode implantation in the entorhinal cortex of 3xTg mice (Mann et al., 2018). Cultured neurons were prepared from E15 PS19 mouse embryos (Akwa et al., 2018) and stimulated at 14 days in vitro (Ehlers, 2003). RT‐qPCR was performed as described (Napolitano et al., 2018). Confocal immunofluorescence, Western blot and statistical analyses were performed as described (Akwa et al., 2018). Result DBS was able to reduce levels of hyperphosphorylated and oligomeric (but not total) tau restoring levels of synaptic proteins back to wild‐type in 3xTg mice. Pathological tau clearance required lysosmal activity, which was enhanced by synaptic stimulation. Trascription factor EB (TFEB) (Sardiello et al., 2009) plays a pivotal role in regulating lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy, and is involved in activity‐driven tau degradation. Indeed, our recent RT‐qPCR data analyses revealed increase expressions of TFEB downstream genes, including ATP6‐V1H and ATP6‐V0D1, in neurons during synaptic stimulation. Conclusion The enhancement of lysosomal degradation by the involvement TFEB and related genes demonstrated positive effects of DBS/synaptic stimulation at cellular and molecular level against pathological tau.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→