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 38 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Cognitive dysfunction and neuroinflammation are typical in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but are also associated with normal aging, albeit less severely. Insulin resistance in the brain has been demonstrated in AD patients and is thought to be involved in AD pathophysiology. Using 15-18 month-old APP/PS1 mice, this study measured peripheral and central insulin signaling and sensitivity, inflammatory markers in brain and plasma and oxidative stress and synapse density in the brain. Novel object recognition, Morris water maze and reversal water maze tasks were performed to assess cognitive function in aged APP/PS1 mice and wild type littermates. Glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity were similar in APP/PS1 mice and wild type controls, however IRS-1 pSer 616 was increased in cortex and dentate gyrus of APP/PS1 mice. Recognition and spatial memory was impaired in both APP/PS1 and wild type mice, however learning impairments were apparent in APP/PS1 mice. Expression of GLP-1 receptor, ERK2, IKKβ, mTOR, PKCθ, NF-κB1 and TLR4 was similar between aged APP/PS1 mice and age-matched wild types. Compared to age-matched wild type mice, IFNγ and IL-4 were increased in brains of APP/PS1 mice. These results suggest that normal aging may be associated with enhanced neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and cognitive decline, however distinctions are apparent in the brain of APP/PS1 mice in terms of inflammation and insulin signaling and in certain cognitive domains. Demarcation of pathological events that distinguish AD from normal aging will allow for improvements in diagnostic tools and the development of more effective therapeutics.

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

APA 7th

Denver, P., English, A., & McClean, P. L. (2018). Inflammation, insulin signaling and cognitive function in aged APP/PS1 mice. Brain, behavior, and immunity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2018.03.032

Vancouver

Denver P, English A, McClean PL. Inflammation, insulin signaling and cognitive function in aged APP/PS1 mice. Brain, behavior, and immunity. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2018.03.032. PMID: 29604345.

BibTeX

@article{denver2018-29604345,
  author  = {Denver, P. and English, A. and McClean, P. L.},
  title   = {{Inflammation, insulin signaling and cognitive function in aged APP/PS1 mice}},
  journal = {Brain, behavior, and immunity},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.bbi.2018.03.032},
  pmid    = {29604345},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2018.03.032}
}

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 38/100
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 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 0 of 2. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Brain, behavior, and immunity)
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 Laboratory or animal study (title names “app/ps1”) — scores zero
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 29604345)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total 38 / 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 “agonists”

285 studies in the library carry the topic tag “agonists”; 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 →