MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380887773 · doi:10.1002/alz.060565

Cross‐species evidence of differential expression of S100A6 and SLC11A1 in the hippocampus of Alzheimer’s disease patients and mouse models

2023· article· en· W4380887773 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Antônio De Bastiani, Bruna Bellaver, Giovanna Carello‐Collar, Maria Zimmermann, Peter Kunach, Stefânia Forner, Alessandra Cadete Martini, Ricardo A. S. Lima‐Filho, Mychael V. Lourenco, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Tharick A. Pascoal, Eduardo R. Zimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicS100 Proteins and Annexins
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscriptomeHippocampal formationPresenilinHippocampusGeneBiologyDiseaseGene expressionAlzheimer's diseaseMolecular biologyNeuroscienceGeneticsPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The evaluation of similarities and differences between mouse models and human Alzheimer’s disease (AD) provides invaluable insights on disease pathophysiology. We compared hippocampal transcriptomic profiles of human late‐onset AD (LOAD) and early‐onset AD (EOAD) individuals with three mouse models (hAβ‐KI, APP/PS1 and 5xFAD) in an exploratory analysis. Afterwards, we validated the intersection of genes consistently altered in all groups using hippocampal tissue from APP/PS1 mice, and EOAD and LOAD patients. Methods Five publicly available human AD/cognitively unimpaired (CU) transcriptomic profiles were collected from GEO ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/ ), merged and submitted to differential expression analysis (DEA) using R. APP/PS1 mouse model RNAseq data from two datasets (GSE149661 and GSE145907) were also collected. Finally, RNAseq data of 5xFAD and hAβ‐KI mouse models were obtained from AMP‐AD Knowledge Portal ( https://www.synapse.org/ ) using synapser and synapserutils packages. All animal models were also submitted to DEA. Validation of selected genes was performed by qRT‐PCR. Target mRNA levels were normalized using β‐actin as a housekeeper gene. The results were expressed relative to wild‐type (WT) animals or CU controls using the 2−ΔΔCt method. Results DEA identified 1164, 3261 and 1782 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for the comparisons between hAβ‐KI, 5xFAD and APP/PS1 mutants versus WT controls, respectively. hAβ‐KI, APP/PS1, and 5xFAD mice exhibited more DEGs in common with LOAD than with EOAD patients. Interestingly, APP/PS1 and 5xFAD mice also presented more DEGs in common with LOAD than with EOAD patients. However, 5xFAD showed significantly higher DEGs intersection with EOAD than with hAβ‐KI and APP/PS1. Additionally, we identified S100A6, C1QB, SST, CD14, CD33, SLC11A1 and KCNK1 genes altered in both EOAD and LOAD as well as the three mouse models evaluated. qRT‐PCR analysis of these genes in EOAD, LOAD and APP/PS1 model revealed S100A6 and SLC11A1 consistently altered in human pathology and mouse model. Conclusion Animal models seek to better simulate AD pathology, making the evaluation of their molecular overlap with human disease greatly important. S100A6, a calcium‐binding protein modulating several biological activities, and SLC11A1, a metal transporter associated with inflammatory processes, were consistently altered in our transcriptomics exploratory analyses and experimental validation, making them promising targets for further investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicS100 Proteins and AnnexinsFrench-language works237,207