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 41 out of 100. Genetics

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 inclusions (FTLD-TDP) is an important cause of dementia in individuals under age 65. Common variants in the TMEM106B gene were previously discovered by genome-wide association to confer genetic risk for FTLD-TDP (p = 1 × 10 - 11 , OR = 1.6). Furthermore, TMEM106B may act as a genetic modifier affecting age at onset and age at death in the Mendelian subgoup of FTLD-TDP due to expansions of the C9orf72 gene. Evidence suggests that TMEM106B variants increase risk for developing FTLD-TDP by increasing expression of Transmembrane Protein 106B (TMEM106B), a lysosomal protein. To further understand the functional role of TMEM106B in disease pathogenesis, we investigated the cell biological effects of increased TMEM106B expression. Here, we report that increased TMEM106B expression results in the appearance of a vacuolar phenotype in multiple cell types, including neurons. Concomitant with the development of this vacuolar phenotype, cells over-expressing TMEM106B exhibit impaired lysosomal acidification and degradative function, as well as increased cytotoxicity. We further identify a potential lysosomal sorting motif for TMEM106B and demonstrate that abrogation of sorting to lysosomes rescues TMEM106B-induced defects. Finally, we show that TMEM106B-induced defects are dependent on the presence of C9orf72, as knockdown of C9orf72 also rescues these defects. In sum, our results suggest that TMEM106B exerts its effects on FTLD-TDP disease risk through alterations in lysosomal pathways. Furthermore, TMEM106B and C9orf72 may interact in FTLD-TDP pathophysiology.

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

APA 7th

Busch, J. I., Unger, T. L., Jain, N., Tyler Skrinak, R., Charan, R. A., & Chen-Plotkin, A. S. (2016). Increased expression of the frontotemporal dementia risk factor TMEM106B causes C9orf72-dependent alterations in lysosomes. Human molecular genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddw127

Vancouver

Busch JI, Unger TL, Jain N, Tyler Skrinak R, Charan RA, Chen-Plotkin AS. Increased expression of the frontotemporal dementia risk factor TMEM106B causes C9orf72-dependent alterations in lysosomes. Human molecular genetics. 2016. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddw127. PMID: 27126638.

BibTeX

@article{busch2016-27126638,
  author  = {Busch, J. I. and Unger, T. L. and Jain, N. and Tyler Skrinak, R. and Charan, R. A. and Chen-Plotkin, A. S.},
  title   = {{Increased expression of the frontotemporal dementia risk factor TMEM106B causes C9orf72-dependent alterations in lysosomes}},
  journal = {Human molecular genetics},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1093/hmg/ddw127},
  pmid    = {27126638},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddw127}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
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 0 of 4; Effect reported 3 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 0 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Human molecular genetics)
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 2016 — 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 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
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 27126638)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 24 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 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 tagged “increased-expression”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “increased-expression”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →