MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402099951 · doi:10.1093/brain/awae278

Brain-penetrant complement inhibition mitigates neurodegeneration in an Alzheimer’s disease mouse model

2024· article· en· W4402099951 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wioleta M. Zelek, Ryan J. Bevan, Jacqui Nimmo, Maarten Dewilde, Bart De Strooper, B. Paul Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilVlaams Instituut voor BiotechnologieUK Dementia Research InstituteKU LeuvenMedical Research Council CanadaLifeArcDementia Collaborative Research Centres, AustraliaAlzheimer’s Research UKUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsNeurodegenerationComplement systemPenetrant (biochemical)InflammationNeuroscienceNeuroinflammationMedicineMicrogliaAlzheimer's diseaseImmunologyAntibodyDiseaseBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complement activation is implicated in driving brain inflammation, self-cell damage and progression of injury in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. Here, we investigate the impact of brain delivery of a complement-blocking antibody on neurodegeneration in an Alzheimer's mouse model. We engineered a brain-penetrant recombinant antibody targeting the pro-inflammatory membrane attack complex. Systemic administration of this antibody in APPNL-G-F mice reduced brain levels of complement activation products, demonstrating successful brain entry and target engagement. Prolonged treatment decreased synapse loss, amyloid burden and brain inflammatory cytokine levels, concomitant with cognitive improvement compared to controls. These results underscore the potential of brain-penetrant complement-inhibiting drugs as promising therapeutics, targeting downstream of amyloid plaques in 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207