Home › Research › Treatments
Pilot study of the reducing effect on amyloidosis in vivo by three FDA pre-approved drugs via the Alzheimer's APP 5' untranslated region
Tucker S, Ahl M, Bush A, Westaway D, Huang X, Rogers JT.. Current Alzheimer research, 2005-04-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
A pilot study was conducted employing a well known mouse model for Alzheimer's disease to evaluate the anti-amyloid efficacy of three FDA pre-approved drugs. Paroxetine (SSRI and APP 5'UTR directed lead compound), N-acetyl cysteine (antioxidant), and erythromycin (macrolide antibiotic) were provided to the drinking water of TgCRND8 mice for three months. This report provides data that measured the steady-state levels of amyloid Abeta-40 and Abeta-42 Abeta as pmol Abeta per gram of mouse brain cortex in drug treated and placebo animals. The relative levels of Abeta peptide levels were reduced after exposure of mice to paroxetine (N=5), NAC (N=7), and erythromycin (N=7) relative to matched placebo counterparts. These results demonstrated proof-of concept for a strategy to further screen the APP 5'UTR target to identify novel drugs that exhibit anti-amyloid efficacy in vivo. These data also demonstrated a statistically significant anti-amyloid trend for paroxetine, NAC and erythromycin. The potential for conducting further studies with these compounds using larger cohorts of TgCRND8 mice is discussed.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tucker, S., Ahl, M., Bush, A., Westaway, D., Huang, X., & Rogers, J. T. (2005). Pilot study of the reducing effect on amyloidosis in vivo by three FDA pre-approved drugs via the Alzheimer's APP 5' untranslated region. Current Alzheimer research. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205053585855
Vancouver
Tucker S, Ahl M, Bush A, Westaway D, Huang X, Rogers JT. Pilot study of the reducing effect on amyloidosis in vivo by three FDA pre-approved drugs via the Alzheimer's APP 5' untranslated region. Current Alzheimer research. 2005. doi:10.2174/1567205053585855. PMID: 15974925.
BibTeX
@article{tucker2005-15974925,
author = {Tucker, S. and Ahl, M. and Bush, A. and Westaway, D. and Huang, X. and Rogers, J. T.},
title = {{Pilot study of the reducing effect on amyloidosis in vivo by three FDA pre-approved drugs via the Alzheimer's APP 5' untranslated region}},
journal = {Current Alzheimer research},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.2174/1567205053585855},
pmid = {15974925},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205053585855}
}
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
- These results demonstrated proof-of concept for a strategy to further screen the APP 5'UTR target to identify novel drugs that exhibit anti-amyloid efficacy in vivo.
- These data also demonstrated a statistically significant anti-amyloid trend for paroxetine, NAC and erythromycin.
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 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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 15974925) |
| 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.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “fda”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “fda”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.