ApoE4 reduces glutamate receptor function and synaptic plasticity by selectively impairing ApoE receptor recycling
Chen Y, Durakoglugil MS, Xian X, Herz J.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010-06-14
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype is a powerful genetic modifier of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The ApoE4 isoform significantly reduces the mean age-of-onset of dementia through unknown mechanisms. Here, we show that ApoE4 selectively impairs synaptic plasticity and NMDA receptor phosphorylation by Reelin, a regulator of brain development and modulator of synaptic strength. ApoE4 reduces neuronal surface expression of Apoer2, a dual function receptor for ApoE and for Reelin, as well as NMDA and AMPA receptors by sequestration in intracellular compartments, thereby critically reducing the ability of Reelin to enhance synaptic glutamate receptor activity. As a result, the ability of Reelin to prevent LTP suppression by extracts from AD-afflicted human brains in hippocampal slices from knockin mice expressing the human ApoE4 isoform is severely impaired. These findings show an isoform-specific role of ApoE in the localization and intracellular trafficking of lipoprotein and glutamate receptors and thereby reveal an alternative mechanism by which ApoE4 may accelerate onset of dementia and neuronal degeneration by differentially impairing the maintenance of synaptic stability.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chen, Y., Durakoglugil, M. S., Xian, X., & Herz, J. (2010). ApoE4 reduces glutamate receptor function and synaptic plasticity by selectively impairing ApoE receptor recycling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914984107
Vancouver
Chen Y, Durakoglugil MS, Xian X, Herz J. ApoE4 reduces glutamate receptor function and synaptic plasticity by selectively impairing ApoE receptor recycling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914984107. PMID: 20547867.
BibTeX
@article{chen2010-20547867,
author = {Chen, Y. and Durakoglugil, M. S. and Xian, X. and Herz, J.},
title = {{ApoE4 reduces glutamate receptor function and synaptic plasticity by selectively impairing ApoE receptor recycling}},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.0914984107},
pmid = {20547867},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914984107}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The ApoE4 isoform significantly reduces the mean age-of-onset of dementia through unknown mechanisms.
- As a result, the ability of Reelin to prevent LTP suppression by extracts from AD-afflicted human brains in hippocampal slices from knockin mice expressing the human ApoE4 isoform is severely impaired.
- These findings show an isoform-specific role of ApoE in the localization and intracellular trafficking of lipoprotein and glutamate receptors and thereby reveal an alternative mechanism by which ApoE4 may accelerate onset of dementia and neuronal degeneration by differentially impairing the maintenance of synaptic stability.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 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 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20547867) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.
Related studies in Genetics
Also in Genetics
202 studies in the library are filed under Genetics with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Genetics hub.