Home › Research › Drug development
Multi-target PET evaluation in APP/PS1/tau mouse model of Alzheimer's disease
Liu Y, Xu Y, Li M, Pan D, Li Y, Wang Y, Wang L, Wu Q et al.. Neuroscience letters, 2020-04-09
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Positron emission tomography (PET) has great benefits for developing therapeutics and quantifying pathological markers in neuropsychiatric disorders. This study aimed to firstly demonstrate the feasibility of PET imaging for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and evaluate the GLP-1R expression. Besides, microglial activation, dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) expression, and glucose metabolism in the brain of APP/PS1/tau transgenic model of AD (3×Tg-AD) were also investigated by PET. [ 18 F]FBEM-Cys 39 -exendin-4, [ 18 F]DPA-714, [ 18 F]fallypride, and [ 18 F]FDG were prepared and PET imaging acquisitions for 3×Tg-AD mice and wild-type (WT) mice were performed at 15, 30, and 60 min post-injection. Fifteen regions of interest (ROIs) were selected and %ID/g was calculated. The results showed that the uptake of [ 18 F]FBEM-Cys 39 -exendin-4 in 10 ROIs of 3×Tg-AD mice at 60 min post-injection was significantly lower than that of WT mice (p < 0.05). Besides, 3×Tg-AD mice showed significantly higher [ 18 F]DPA-714 uptake in 7 ROIs and lower [ 18 F]fallypride uptake in 4 ROIs compared to WT mice. [ 18 F]FDG PET showed no significant differences in any ROIs between the two groups. A positive correlation between the uptake of [ 18 F]fallypride and [ 18 F]FBEM-Cys 39 -exendin-4 could be found in the whole brain. In summary, these results validated the feasibility of GLP-1R PET in AD and demonstrated the reduced GLP-1R and D2R expression as well as increased microglial activation caused by AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Li, M., Pan, D., Li, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2020). Multi-target PET evaluation in APP/PS1/tau mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134938
Vancouver
Liu Y, Xu Y, Li M, Pan D, Li Y, Wang Y, et al. Multi-target PET evaluation in APP/PS1/tau mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience letters. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134938. PMID: 32278026.
BibTeX
@article{liu2020-32278026,
author = {Liu, Y. and Xu, Y. and Li, M. and Pan, D. and Li, Y. and Wang, Y. and Wang, L. and Wu, Q. and others},
title = {{Multi-target PET evaluation in APP/PS1/tau mouse model of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neuroscience letters},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134938},
pmid = {32278026},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134938}
}
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
- The results showed that the uptake of [ 18 F]FBEM-Cys 39 -exendin-4 in 10 ROIs of 3×Tg-AD mice at 60 min post-injection was significantly lower than that of WT mice (p < 0.05).
- Besides, 3×Tg-AD mice showed significantly higher [ 18 F]DPA-714 uptake in 7 ROIs and lower [ 18 F]fallypride uptake in 4 ROIs compared to WT mice. [ 18 F]FDG PET showed no significant differences in any ROIs between the two groups.
- In summary, these results validated the feasibility of GLP-1R PET in AD and demonstrated the reduced GLP-1R and D2R expression as well as increased microglial activation caused by AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience letters) |
| 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 | 2020 — 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 |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32278026) |
| 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development
Also tagged “multi-target”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “multi-target”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.