SUMO2 rescues neuronal and glial cells from the toxicity of P301L Tau mutant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Abnormal intracellular accumulation of Tau aggregates is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other Tauopathies, such as Frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Tau deposits primarily affect neurons, but evidence indicates that glial cells may also be affected and contribute distinctively to disease progression. Cells can respond to toxic insults by orchestrating global changes in posttranslational modifications of their proteome. Previous studies suggest that SUMOylation, a posttranslational modification consisting of conjugation of SUMO (Small ubiquitin-like modifier) to target proteins, was decreased in the hippocampus of AD patients and in animal model of AD compared with controls. This decrease in SUMOylation was correlated with increased Tau pathology and cognitive decline. Other studies have reported increased levels of SUMO in AD brains. The goal of our study was to evaluate whether SUMO conjugation modifies the neurodegenerative disease pathology associated with the aggregation-prone mutant TauP301L, in neurons and in glial cells. Methods: We used viral approaches to express mutant TauP301L and SUMO2 in the hippocampus of wild-type mice. We assessed Tau distribution by immunostaining and Tau aggregation by insolubility assays followed by western blotting. We assessed neuronal toxicity and performed cell count and shape descriptor analyses on astrocytes and microglial cells. Results: We found that mutant TauP301L, when expressed exclusively in neurons, is toxic not only to neurons but also to glial cells, and that SUMO2 counteracts TauP301L toxicity in neurons as well as in glia. Discussion: Our results uncover an endogenous neuroprotective mechanism, whereby SUMO2 conjugation reduces Tau neuropathology and protects against toxic effects of Tau in glial cells.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".