Microglia phenotypes are associated with subregional patterns of concomitant tau, amyloid-β and α-synuclein pathologies in the hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cellular alterations of the hippocampus lead to memory decline, a shared symptom between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) patients. However, the subregional deterioration pattern of the hippocampus differs between AD and DLB with the CA1 subfield being more severely affected in AD. The activation of microglia, the brain immune cells, could play a role in its selective volume loss. How subregional microglia populations vary within AD or DLB and across these conditions remains poorly understood. Furthermore, how the nature of the hippocampal local pathological imprint is associated with microglia responses needs to be elucidated. To this purpose, we employed an automated pipeline for analysis of 3D confocal microscopy images to assess CA1, CA3 and DG/CA4 subfields microglia responses in post-mortem hippocampal samples from late-onset AD (n = 10), DLB (n = 8) and age-matched control (CTL) (n = 11) individuals. In parallel, we performed volumetric analyses of hyperphosphorylated tau (pTau), amyloid-β (Aβ) and phosphorylated α-synuclein (pSyn) loads. For each of the 32,447 extracted microglia, 16 morphological features were measured to classify them into seven distinct morphological clusters. Our results show similar alterations of microglial morphological features and clusters in AD and DLB, but with more prominent changes in AD. We identified two distinct microglia clusters enriched in disease conditions and particularly increased in CA1 and DG/CA4 of AD and CA3 of DLB. Our study confirms frequent concomitance of pTau, Aβ and pSyn loads across AD and DLB but reveals a specific subregional pattern for each type of pathology, along with a generally increased severity in AD. Furthermore, pTau and pSyn loads were highly correlated across subregions and conditions. We uncovered tight associations between microglial changes and the subfield pathological imprint. Our findings suggest that combinations and severity of subregional pTau, Aβ and pSyn pathologies transform local microglia phenotypic composition in the hippocampus. The high burdens of pTau and pSyn associated with increased microglial alterations could be a factor in CA1 vulnerability in AD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".