Home › Research › Drug development
Pathological reorganization of NMDA receptors subunits and postsynaptic protein PSD-95 distribution in Alzheimer's disease
Leuba G, Vernay A, Kraftsik R, Tardif E, Riederer BM, Savioz A.. Current Alzheimer research, 2014-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), synaptic alterations play a major role and are often correlated with cognitive changes. In order to better understand synaptic modifications, we compared alterations in NMDA receptors and postsynaptic protein PSD-95 expression in the entorhinal cortex (EC) and frontal cortex (FC; area 9) of AD and control brains. We combined immunohistochemical and image analysis methods to quantify on consecutive sections the distribution of PSD-95 and NMDA receptors GluN1, GluN2A and GluN2B in EC and FC from 25 AD and control cases. The density of stained receptors was analyzed using multivariate statistical methods to assess the effect of neurodegeneration. In both regions, the number of neuronal profiles immunostained for GluN1 receptors subunit and PSD-95 protein was significantly increased in AD compared to controls (3-6 fold), while the number of neuronal profiles stained for GluN2A and GluN2B receptors subunits was on the contrary decreased (3-4 fold). The increase in marked neuronal profiles was more prominent in a cortical band corresponding to layers 3 to 5 with large pyramidal cells. Neurons positive for GluN1 or PSD-95 staining were often found in the same localization on consecutive sections and they were also reactive for the anti-tau antibody AD2, indicating a neurodegenerative process. Differences in the density of immunoreactive puncta representing neuropile were not statistically significant. Altogether these data indicate that GluN1 and PSD-95 accumulate in the neuronal perikarya, but this is not the case for GluN2A and GluN2B, while the neuropile compartment is less subject to modifications. Thus, important variations in the pattern of distribution of the NMDA receptors subunits and PSD-95 represent a marker in AD and by impairing the neuronal network, contribute to functional deterioration.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Leuba, G., Vernay, A., Kraftsik, R., Tardif, E., Riederer, B. M., & Savioz, A. (2014). Pathological reorganization of NMDA receptors subunits and postsynaptic protein PSD-95 distribution in Alzheimer's disease. Current Alzheimer research. https://doi.org/10.2174/15672050113106660170
Vancouver
Leuba G, Vernay A, Kraftsik R, Tardif E, Riederer BM, Savioz A. Pathological reorganization of NMDA receptors subunits and postsynaptic protein PSD-95 distribution in Alzheimer's disease. Current Alzheimer research. 2014. doi:10.2174/15672050113106660170. PMID: 24156266.
BibTeX
@article{leuba2014-24156266,
author = {Leuba, G. and Vernay, A. and Kraftsik, R. and Tardif, E. and Riederer, B. M. and Savioz, A.},
title = {{Pathological reorganization of NMDA receptors subunits and postsynaptic protein PSD-95 distribution in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Current Alzheimer research},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.2174/15672050113106660170},
pmid = {24156266},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/15672050113106660170}
}
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
- In both regions, the number of neuronal profiles immunostained for GluN1 receptors subunit and PSD-95 protein was significantly increased in AD compared to controls (3-6 fold), while the number of neuronal profiles stained for GluN2A and GluN2B receptors subunits was on the contrary decreased (3-4 fold).
- Differences in the density of immunoreactive puncta representing neuropile were not statistically significant.
- Altogether these data indicate that GluN1 and PSD-95 accumulate in the neuronal perikarya, but this is not the case for GluN2A and GluN2B, while the neuropile compartment is less subject to modifications.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current Alzheimer research) |
| 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 | 2014 — 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 | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 24156266) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.