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.

36/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Aging is associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), cardiovascular disease and cancer. Oxidative stress is considered as a major factor that accelerates the aging process. d-galactose (d-gal), a reducing sugar, induces oxidative stress resulting in alteration in mitochondrial dynamics and apoptosis of neurons. To understand the ability of tetrahydropalmatine (THP) to ameliorate memory impairment caused by aging, we investigated the effect of THP on d-gal induced memory impairment in rats. Subcutaneous injection of d-gal (100mg/kg/d) for 8weeks caused memory loss as detected by the Morris water maze and morphologic abnormalities of neurons in the hippocampus regions and cortex of rat brain. THP treatment ameliorated d-gal induced memory impairment associated with the decrease of malondialdehyde (MDA) and nitric oxide (NO) contents, as well as the increase of glutathione (GSH) levels, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) activities. THP treatment was also found to reverse the abnormality of acetylcholine (ACh) levels and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activities. In addition, treatment with THP could decrease the expression of nuclear factor κ (NF-κB) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) which prevented the neuroinflammation and memory impairment in the d-gal treated rats. Taken together, these results clearly demonstrated that subcutaneous injection of d-gal produced memory deficits, meanwhile THP could protect neuron from d-gal insults and improve cognition. This study provided an experimental basis for clinical application of THP in AD therapy.

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

APA 7th

Qu, Z., Zhang, J., Yang, H., Huo, L., Gao, J., Chen, H., et al. (2016). Protective effect of tetrahydropalmatine against d-galactose induced memory impairment in rat. Physiology & behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.11.016

Vancouver

Qu Z, Zhang J, Yang H, Huo L, Gao J, Chen H, et al. Protective effect of tetrahydropalmatine against d-galactose induced memory impairment in rat. Physiology & behavior. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.11.016. PMID: 26592138.

BibTeX

@article{qu2016-26592138,
  author  = {Qu, Z. and Zhang, J. and Yang, H. and Huo, L. and Gao, J. and Chen, H. and Gao, W.},
  title   = {{Protective effect of tetrahydropalmatine against d-galactose induced memory impairment in rat}},
  journal = {Physiology \& behavior},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.11.016},
  pmid    = {26592138},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.11.016}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Aging is associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), cardiovascular disease and cancer.
THP treatment ameliorated d-gal induced memory impairment associated with the decrease of malondialdehyde (MDA) and nitric oxide (NO) contents, as well as the increase of glutathione (GSH) levels, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) activities.
Taken together, these results clearly demonstrated that subcutaneous injection of d-gal produced memory deficits, meanwhile THP could protect neuron from d-gal insults and improve cognition.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

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 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 (Physiology & behavior)
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	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 “rat”) — 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 26592138)
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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “protective”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “protective”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →