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 36 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, comprising 60-80% of all reported cases, and currently affects 5.2 million Americans. AD is characterized pathologically by the accumulation of senile plaques (SPs), neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), and synapse loss. The early stages of memory loss associated with AD have been studied in a condition known as amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), arguably the earliest form of AD. In spite of extensive research across a variety of disciplines, the cause of AD remains elusive. Proteomics techniques have helped to advance knowledge about AD by identifying irregularities in protein expression and post-translational modifications (PTMs) in AD brain. Glycosylation is a less studied PTM with regards to AD and MCI. This PTM is important to study because glycosylation is involved in proper protein folding, protein anchoring to cell membranes, and the delivery of proteins to organelles, and these processes are impaired in AD. Concanavalin-A (Con-A) binds to N-linked glycoproteins, but hydrophobic sites on nonglycoproteins are also known to bind Con-A. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to examine Con-A-associated brain proteins in MCI and AD with focus on the hippocampus and inferior parietal lobule (IPL) brain regions. Proteins found in AD hippocampus with altered levels are glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), tropomyosin 3 (TPM3), Rab GDP-dissociation inhibitor XAP-4 (XAP4), and heat shock protein 90 (HSP90). Proteins found with altered levels in AD IPL are alpha-enolase, gamma-enolase, and XAP-4. MCI hippocampal proteins with altered levels are dihydropyrimidase-2 (DRP2), glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP-78), protein phosphatase related protein Sds-22 (Sds22), and GFAP and the only protein found with altered levels in MCI IPL was beta-synuclein. These results are discussed with reference to biochemical and pathological alterations in and progression of AD.

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

APA 7th

Owen, J. B., Di Domenico, F., Sultana, R., Perluigi, M., Cini, C., Pierce, W. M., et al. (2009). Proteomics-determined differences in the concanavalin-A-fractionated proteome of hippocampus and inferior parietal lobule in subjects with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: implications for progression of AD. Journal of proteome research. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr800667a

Vancouver

Owen JB, Di Domenico F, Sultana R, Perluigi M, Cini C, Pierce WM, et al. Proteomics-determined differences in the concanavalin-A-fractionated proteome of hippocampus and inferior parietal lobule in subjects with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: implications for progression of AD. Journal of proteome research. 2009. doi:10.1021/pr800667a. PMID: 19072283.

BibTeX

@article{owen2009-19072283,
  author  = {Owen, J. B. and Di Domenico, F. and Sultana, R. and Perluigi, M. and Cini, C. and Pierce, W. M. and Butterfield, D. A.},
  title   = {{Proteomics-determined differences in the concanavalin-A-fractionated proteome of hippocampus and inferior parietal lobule in subjects with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: implications for progression of AD}},
  journal = {Journal of proteome research},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1021/pr800667a},
  pmid    = {19072283},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1021/pr800667a}
}

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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
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 1 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. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of proteome 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 2009 — 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)
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 19072283)
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 Biomarkers

Also tagged “progression”

6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “progression”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →