The GLP-1 medicines semaglutide and tirzepatide do not alter disease-related pathology, behaviour or cognitive function in 5XFAD and APP/PS1 mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The development of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity has been accompanied by evidence for anti-inflammatory and cytoprotective actions in the heart, blood vessels, kidney, and brain. Whether GLP-1R agonists might be useful clinically for attenuating deterioration of cognitive dysfunction and reducing the progression of Alzheimer's disease remains uncertain. METHODS: Here we evaluated the actions of semaglutide and tirzepatide, clinically distinct GLP-1 medicines, in two mouse models of neurodegeneration. RESULTS: Semaglutide reduced body weight and improved glucose tolerance in 12-month-old male and female 5XFAD and APP/PS1 mice, consistent with pharmacological engagement of the GLP-1R. Nevertheless, amyloid plaque density was not different in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, or subiculum of semaglutide-treated 12-month-old 5XFAD and APP/PS1 mice. IBA1 and GFAP expression were increased in the hippocampus of 5XFAD and APP/PS1 mice but were not reduced by semaglutide. Moreover, parameters of neurobehavioral and cognitive function evaluated using Open Field testing or the Morris water maze were not improved following treatment with semaglutide. To explore whether incretin therapies might be more effective in younger mice, we studied semaglutide and tirzepatide action in 6-month-old male and female 5XFAD mice. Neither semaglutide nor tirzepatide modified the extent of plaque accumulation, hippocampal IBA1+ or GFAP+ cells, or parameters of neurobehavioral testing, despite improving glucose tolerance and reducing body weight. mRNA biomarkers of inflammation and neurodegeneration were increased in the hippocampus of male and female 5XFAD mice but were not reduced after treatment with semaglutide or tirzepatide. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings reveal preservation of the metabolic actions of two GLP-1 medicines, semaglutide and tirzepatide, yet inability to detect improvement in structural and functional parameters of neurodegeneration in two mouse models of Alzheimer's disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".