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 43 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Brains were obtained at autopsy from 24 patients with Down's syndrome, ranging in age from 13 to 71 years. Neurofibrillary tangle containing neurones of the hippocampus were stained using a Palmgren silver method and immunocytochemically (PAP) using antisera to paired helical filament protein, human tau protein and ubiquitin, as primary antibody. Counts of cells stained by each method were compared. In patients under 50 years of age, in whom only a limited number of tangle bearing cells were present, the number of profiles visualized with silver, anti-paired helical filament and anti-tau methods were similar. However, in patients over 50 years of age (and in certain of those under 50), in whom numerous tangles were present, the number of cell profiles visualized with silver and anti-paired helical filament methods were still similar though anti-tau detected fewer positive cells. This was because of the increased presence, in such patients, of extracellular tangles which had "lost" anti-tau immunoreactivity. Such data suggest that although tau protein forms a major antigenic determinant of neurofibrillary tangles in Down's syndrome (as it does in Alzheimer's disease) this protein may only decorate the basic paired helical filament protein skeleton, and is removed by macrophagic activity upon neuronal death. In all patients, anti-ubiquitin revealed fewer tangles than any other method. It is possible that ubiquitin may be present only transiently, within tangles perhaps following initial formation and lasting only as long as the normal protein degradation processes remain viable within the diseased neurone.

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

APA 7th

Mann, D. M., Prinja, D., Davies, C. A., Ihara, Y., Delacourte, A., Défossez, A., et al. (1989). Immunocytochemical profile of neurofibrillary tangles in Down's syndrome patients of different ages. Journal of the neurological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-510x(89)90140-8

Vancouver

Mann DM, Prinja D, Davies CA, Ihara Y, Delacourte A, Défossez A, et al. Immunocytochemical profile of neurofibrillary tangles in Down's syndrome patients of different ages. Journal of the neurological sciences. 1989. doi:10.1016/0022-510x(89)90140-8. PMID: 2553874.

BibTeX

@article{mann1989-2553874,
  author  = {Mann, D. M. and Prinja, D. and Davies, C. A. and Ihara, Y. and Delacourte, A. and Défossez, A. and Mayer, R. J. and Landon, M.},
  title   = {{Immunocytochemical profile of neurofibrillary tangles in Down's syndrome patients of different ages}},
  journal = {Journal of the neurological sciences},
  year    = {1989},
  doi     = {10.1016/0022-510x(89)90140-8},
  pmid    = {2553874},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-510x(89)90140-8}
}

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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 43/100
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 1 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 0 of 2. 25 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 43 of 100. Total 43 of 100.25 of the 58 points we could judge = 43 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the neurological sciences)
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 1989 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 24 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 2553874)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 25 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total 43 / 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 Drug development

Also tagged “immunocytochemical”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “immunocytochemical”; 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 Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →