The Q/R editing site of AMPA receptor GluA2 subunit acts as an epigenetic switch regulating dendritic spines, neurodegeneration and cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RNA editing at the Q/R site of GluA2 occurs with ~99% efficiency in the healthy brain, so that the majority of AMPARs contain GluA2(R) instead of the exonically encoded GluA2(Q). Reduced Q/R site editing infcreases AMPA receptor calcium permeability and leads to dendritic spine loss, neurodegeneration, seizures and learning impairments. Furthermore, GluA2 Q/R site editing is impaired in Alzheimer's disease (AD), raising the possibility that unedited GluA2(Q)-containing AMPARs contribute to synapse loss and neurodegeneration in AD. If true, then inhibiting expression of unedited GluA2(Q), while maintaining expression of GluA2(R), may be a novel strategy of preventing synapse loss and neurodegeneration in AD. METHODS: We engineered mice with the 'edited' arginine codon (CGG) in place of the unedited glutamine codon (CAG) at position 607 of the Gria2 gene. We crossbred this line with the J20 mouse model of AD and conducted anatomical, electrophysiological and behavioural assays to determine the impact of eliminating unedited GluA2(Q) expression on AD-related phenotypes. RESULTS: Eliminating unedited GluA2(Q) expression in AD mice prevented dendritic spine loss and hippocampal CA1 neurodegeneration as well as improved working and reference memory in the radial arm maze. These phenotypes were improved independently of Aβ pathology and ongoing seizure susceptibility. Surprisingly, our data also revealed increased spine density in non-AD mice with exonically encoded GluA2(R) as compared to their wild-type littermates, suggesting an unexpected and previously unknown role for unedited GluA2(Q) in regulating dendritic spines. CONCLUSION: The Q/R editing site of the AMPA receptor subunit GluA2 may act as an epigenetic switch that regulates dendritic spines, neurodegeneration and memory deficits 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".