<i>APOE</i>ε4 potentiates the effects of Aβ pathology on the deposition of neurofibrillary tangles via tau phosphorylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The mechanisms by which the apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOEε4) allele influences Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathophysiological progression are poorly understood. Here, we tested the association of APOEε4 carriership and amyloid‐β (Aβ) burden with longitudinal tau pathology progression. Method We studied 104 individuals across the aging and AD clinical spectrum from the McGill TRIAD cohort. Study participants underwent clinical assessments, APOE genotyping, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography (PET) for Aβ ([18F]AZD4694) and tau ([18F]MK6240) at baseline, as well as an additional follow‐up tau‐PET scan (mean follow‐up, 2.4 years). We further assessed longitudinal changes in tau phosphorylation (plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 217 [p‐tau217+]), brain atrophy (gray matter density), and clinical function (clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes). Result We found that APOEε4 carriership potentiates Aβ effects on longitudinal tau tangle accumulation over two years (Figure 1). Interestingly, the APOEε4‐potentiated Aβ effects on tangles were mediated by longitudinal plasma p‐tau217+ increase (Figure 2). In addition, this longitudinal tau accumulation as measured by PET was accompanied by brain atrophy and clinical decline during the follow‐up period (Figure 3). Conclusion Our results support a model in which the APOEε4 allele plays a key role in Aβ downstream effects on the aggregation of phosphorylated tau in the form of neurofibrillary tangles in the living human brain, which is a key factor in the development of dementia. These observations have important implications for the design of future trials by suggesting that the combination of therapies targeting both ApoeE4 and Aβ pathology might have the potential to synergistically halt tau progression 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) | 0.002 | 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".