Contactin 5 and Apolipoproteins Interplay in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Apolipoproteins and contactin 5 are proteins associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology. Apolipoproteins act on transport and clearance of cholesterol and phospholipids during synaptic turnover and terminal proliferation. Contactin 5 is a neuronal membrane protein involved in key processes of neurodevelopment. Objective: To investigate the interactions between contactin 5 and apolipoproteins in AD, and the role of these proteins in response to neuronal damage. Methods: Apolipoproteins (measured by Luminex), contactin 5 (measured by Olink's proximity extension assay), and cholesterol (measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry) were assessed in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma of cognitively unimpaired participants (n = 93). Gene expression was measured using polymerase chain reaction in the frontal cortex of autopsied-confirmed AD (n = 57) and control subjects (n = 31) and in the hippocampi of mice following entorhinal cortex lesions. Results: Contactin 5 positively correlated with apolipoproteins B (p = 5.4×10-8), D (p = 1.86×10-4), E (p = 2.92×10-9), J (p = 2.65×10-9), and with cholesterol (p = 0.0096) in the CSF, and with cholesterol (p = 0.02), HDL (p = 0.0143), and LDL (p = 0.0121) in the plasma. Negative correlations were seen between CNTN5, APOB (p = 0.034) and APOE (p = 0.015) mRNA levels in the brains of control subjects. In the mouse model, apoe and apoj gene expression increased during the reinnervation phase (p < 0.05), while apob (p = 0.023) and apod (p = 0.006) increased in the deafferentation stage. Conclusions: Extensive interactions were observed between contactin 5 and apolipoproteins and cholesterol, possibly due to neuronal damage. The alterations in gene expression of apolipoproteins suggest a role in axonal, terminal, and synaptic remodeling in response to entorhinal cortex damage.
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".