Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Activation of microglia by classical inflammatory mediators can convert astrocytes into a neurotoxic A1 phenotype in a variety of neurological diseases 1,2 . Development of agents that could inhibit the formation of A1 reactive astrocytes could be used to treat these diseases for which there are no disease-modifying therapies. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP1R) agonists have been indicated as potential neuroprotective agents for neurologic disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease 3-13 . The mechanisms by which GLP1R agonists are neuroprotective are not known. Here we show that a potent, brain-penetrant long-acting GLP1R agonist, NLY01, protects against the loss of dopaminergic neurons and behavioral deficits in the α-synuclein preformed fibril (α-syn PFF) mouse model of sporadic Parkinson's disease 14,15 . NLY01 also prolongs the life and reduces the behavioral deficits and neuropathological abnormalities in the human A53T α-synuclein (hA53T) transgenic mouse model of α-synucleinopathy-induced neurodegeneration 16 . We found that NLY01 is a potent GLP1R agonist with favorable properties that is neuroprotective through the direct prevention of microglial-mediated conversion of astrocytes to an A1 neurotoxic phenotype. In light of its favorable properties, NLY01 should be evaluated in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and related neurologic disorders characterized by microglial activation.

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

APA 7th

Yun, S. P., Kam, T. I., Panicker, N., Kim, S., Oh, Y., Park, J. S., et al. (2018). Block of A1 astrocyte conversion by microglia is neuroprotective in models of Parkinson's disease. Nature medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0051-5

Vancouver

Yun SP, Kam TI, Panicker N, Kim S, Oh Y, Park JS, et al. Block of A1 astrocyte conversion by microglia is neuroprotective in models of Parkinson's disease. Nature medicine. 2018. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0051-5. PMID: 29892066.

BibTeX

@article{yun2018-29892066,
  author  = {Yun, S. P. and Kam, T. I. and Panicker, N. and Kim, S. and Oh, Y. and Park, J. S. and Kwon, S. H. and others},
  title   = {{Block of A1 astrocyte conversion by microglia is neuroprotective in models of Parkinson's disease}},
  journal = {Nature medicine},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41591-018-0051-5},
  pmid    = {29892066},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0051-5}
}

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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 47/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 10 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 27 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 47 of 100. Total 47 of 100.27 of the 58 points we could judge = 47 of 100

Published in a top-tier 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 10 / 10 Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Nature medicine)
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 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 29892066)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 27 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100.
Total 47 / 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 Drug development

Also tagged “glp-1”

285 studies in the library carry the topic tag “glp-1”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 285 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →