This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Although the amyloid β-protein (Aβ) is believed to play an initiating role in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the molecular characteristics of the key pathogenic Aβ forms are not well understood. As a result, it has proved difficult to identify optimal agents that target disease-relevant forms of Aβ. Here, we combined the use of Aβ-rich aqueous extracts of brain samples from AD patients as a source of human Aβ and live-cell imaging of iPSC-derived human neurons to develop a bioassay capable of quantifying the relative protective effects of multiple anti-Aβ antibodies. We report the characterization of 1C22, an aggregate-preferring murine anti-Aβ antibody, which better protects against forms of Aβ oligomers that are toxic to neurites than do the murine precursors of the clinical immunotherapeutics, bapineuzumab and solanezumab. These results suggest further examination of 1C22 is warranted, and that this bioassay maybe useful as a primary screen to identify yet more potent anti-Aβ therapeutics.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Jin, M., O'Nuallain, B., Hong, W., Boyd, J., Lagomarsino, V. N., O'Malley, T. T., et al. (2018). An in vitro paradigm to assess potential anti-Aβ antibodies for Alzheimer's disease. Nature communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05068-w

Vancouver

Jin M, O'Nuallain B, Hong W, Boyd J, Lagomarsino VN, O'Malley TT, et al. An in vitro paradigm to assess potential anti-Aβ antibodies for Alzheimer's disease. Nature communications. 2018. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05068-w. PMID: 29992960.

BibTeX

@article{jin2018-29992960,
  author  = {Jin, M. and O'Nuallain, B. and Hong, W. and Boyd, J. and Lagomarsino, V. N. and O'Malley, T. T. and Liu, W. and Vanderburg, C. R. and others},
  title   = {{An in vitro paradigm to assess potential anti-Aβ antibodies for Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Nature communications},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41467-018-05068-w},
  pmid    = {29992960},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05068-w}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

As a result, it has proved difficult to identify optimal agents that target disease-relevant forms of Aβ.
These results suggest further examination of 1C22 is warranted, and that this bioassay maybe useful as a primary screen to identify yet more potent anti-Aβ therapeutics.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Nature communications)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Laboratory or animal study (title names “in vitro”) — scores zero
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29992960)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	26 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total	45 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “anti-a-antibodies”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “anti-a-antibodies”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →