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 50 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Background Alzheimer's Disease (AD) affects millions globally, but therapy development is lagging. New experimental systems that monitor neuronal functions in conditions approximating the AD brain may be beneficial for identifying new therapeutic strategies. Methods We expose cultured neurons to aqueous-soluble human brain extract from 43 individuals across a spectrum of AD pathology. Multi-electrode arrays (MEAs) and live-cell imaging were used to assess neuronal firing and neurite integrity (NI), respectively, following treatments of rat cortical neurons (MEA) and human iPSC-derived neurons (iN) with human brain extracts. Results We observe associations between spontaneous activity and Aβ42:40 levels, between neurite integrity and oligomeric Aβ, and between neurite integrity and tau levels present in the brain extracts. However, these associations with Aβ and tau do not fully account for the effects observed. Proteomic profiling of the brain extracts revealed additional candidates correlated with neuronal structure and activity. Neurotoxicity in MEA and NI assays was associated with proteins implicated in lysosomal storage disorders, while neuroprotection was associated with proteins of the WAVE regulatory complex controlling actin cytoskeleton dynamics. Elevated ganglioside GM2 activator (GM2A) associates with reductions in both NI and MEA activity, and cell-derived GM2A alone is sufficient to induce a loss of neurite integrity and a reduction in neuronal firing. Conclusions The techniques and data herein introduce a system for modeling neuronal vulnerability in response to factors in the human brain and provide insights into proteins potentially contributing to AD pathogenesis.

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

APA 7th

Hsieh, Y. C., Negri, J., He, A., Pearse, R. V., Liu, L., Duong, D. M., et al. (2022). Elevated ganglioside GM2 activator (GM2A) in human brain tissue reduces neurite integrity and spontaneous neuronal activity. Molecular neurodegeneration. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-022-00558-4

Vancouver

Hsieh YC, Negri J, He A, Pearse RV, Liu L, Duong DM, et al. Elevated ganglioside GM2 activator (GM2A) in human brain tissue reduces neurite integrity and spontaneous neuronal activity. Molecular neurodegeneration. 2022. doi:10.1186/s13024-022-00558-4. PMID: 36131294.

BibTeX

@article{hsieh2022-36131294,
  author  = {Hsieh, Y. C. and Negri, J. and He, A. and Pearse, R. V. and Liu, L. and Duong, D. M. and Chibnik, L. B. and Bennett, D. A. and others},
  title   = {{Elevated ganglioside GM2 activator (GM2A) in human brain tissue reduces neurite integrity and spontaneous neuronal activity}},
  journal = {Molecular neurodegeneration},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1186/s13024-022-00558-4},
  pmid    = {36131294},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-022-00558-4}
}

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 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 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 3 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 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. 29 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.29 of the 58 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Molecular neurodegeneration)
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 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 43 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 36131294)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 29 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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 Biomarkers

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →