MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390198268 · doi:10.1002/alz.081975

Astrocyte reactivity is associated with synaptic dysfunction across the aging and Alzheimer’s disease spectrum, whereas microglial reactivity is specifically associated with synaptic dysfunction related to cognitive impairment

2023· article· en· W4390198268 on OpenAlexaff
Francieli Rohden, Pâmela C.L. Ferreira, Bruna Bellaver, Cristiano Schaffer Aguzzoli, Carolina Soares, Guilherme Povala, João Pedro Ferrari‐Souza, Firoza Z Lussier, Hussein Zalzale, Sarah Abbas, Peter Charles Lemaire, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, Arlec Cabrera, Cécile Tissot, Joseph Therriault, Stijn Servaes, Jenna Stevenson, Nesrine Rahmouni, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Annie Cohen, Oscar L. López, Nicholas J. Ashton, Thomas K. Karikari, Henrik Zetterberg, Kaj Blennow, Diogo O. Souza, Eduardo R. Zimmer, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Tharick A. Pascoal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurograninGlial fibrillary acidic proteinNeuroscienceSynaptophysinSynaptotagmin 1Synaptic plasticityAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyMedicineInternal medicineBiologyDiseaseReceptorSynaptic vesicleSignal transductionImmunohistochemistryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Healthy synapses are the key to proper brain function, ensuring communication between neurons. Recent studies have associated synaptic dysfunction with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) proteins, however, little is known about the role of glial reactivity, another pathology closely linked to AD, in brain synaptic dysfunction (Figure 1). Method We evaluated 123 individuals (67 cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 56 cognitively impaired (CI)) who had available Aß‐ and Tau‐PET as well as cerebrospinal fluid measures of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), chitinase‐3‐like protein 1 (YKL‐40), soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2), synaptic markers (growth‐associated protein 43 (GAP‐43), neurogranin (Ng), synaptotagmin 1 (SYT1), and presynaptic protein synaptosomal‐associated protein 25 (SNAP‐25)). ANCOVA adjusted for clinical diagnosis, age, and sex was used to compare levels of CSF biomarkers; whereas linear regressions adjusted for age, sex, clinical diagnosis, and Aß/tau‐PET were used to test the associations between glial reactivity and synaptic markers. Result Demographic information is shown in Table 1. Increased levels of GAP‐43, SNAP‐25, and Ng were observed in CI compared to CU individuals. CSF GFAP was highly associated with both presynaptic and postsynaptic biomarkers in CU and CI groups. CSF YKL‐40 was associated only with presynaptic biomarkers in both clinical groups. On the other hand, CSF sTREM2 showed an association with all synaptic markers but only in the CI group (Figure 2). Conclusion We found a heterogeneous association between synaptic markers and glial activation. The presence of GFAP+ astrocytes was associated with dysfunction of presynaptic/postsynaptic markers, whereas YKL‐40+ astrocytes specifically reflected presynaptic dysfunction across aging and AD spectrums. On the other hand, microglial activation reflected synaptic dysfunction associated with dementia symptoms. Our results support recent experimental observations suggesting that clarifying the heterogeneity of different glial cell phenotypes is crucial to advancing our understanding of the role of immune cells in cognitive decline.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→