Home › Research › Drug development
Relationship between microtubule-binding repeats and morphology of neurofibrillary tangle in Alzheimer's disease
Kitamura T, Sugimori K, Sudo S, Kobayashi K.. Acta neurologica Scandinavica, 2005-11-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objective The present study was performed to compare the distributions of three-repeat (3R) and four-repeat (4R) neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) with those of pretangles (p-NFT), intracellular NFT (i-NFT), and extracellular NFT (e-NFT) in the hippocampus of Alzheimer's disease brains. Methods NFT labeling was performed using anti-tau antibodies: pSer262 for p-NFT, pSer422 for i-NFT, AT8 for e-NFT, RD3 for 3R, and RD4 for 4R tau, and Gallyas impregnation for the NFT population. RD4- and pSer422-positive NFT were detected predominantly in sectors from CA2 to CA4, while RD3- and pSer262-positive NFT were predominantly present in CA1, the entorhinal cortex, and the subiculum. The tau epitope recognized by pSer262 belongs to 4R tau but it showed a strong correlation with RD3- and AT8-positive NFT. Conclusions Sectors CA2-CA4 showed predominantly 4R-NFT containing the pSer422 epitope. pSer262 may detect the process of transformation from p-NFT to i-NFT, and e-NFT consisted predominantly of 3R tau.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kitamura, T., Sugimori, K., Sudo, S., & Kobayashi, K. (2005). Relationship between microtubule-binding repeats and morphology of neurofibrillary tangle in Alzheimer's disease. Acta neurologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00488.x
Vancouver
Kitamura T, Sugimori K, Sudo S, Kobayashi K. Relationship between microtubule-binding repeats and morphology of neurofibrillary tangle in Alzheimer's disease. Acta neurologica Scandinavica. 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00488.x. PMID: 16218916.
BibTeX
@article{kitamura2005-16218916,
author = {Kitamura, T. and Sugimori, K. and Sudo, S. and Kobayashi, K.},
title = {{Relationship between microtubule-binding repeats and morphology of neurofibrillary tangle in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Acta neurologica Scandinavica},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00488.x},
pmid = {16218916},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00488.x}
}
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
- Objective The present study was performed to compare the distributions of three-repeat (3R) and four-repeat (4R) neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) with those of pretangles (p-NFT), intracellular NFT (i-NFT), and extracellular NFT (e-NFT) in the hippocampus of Alzheimer's disease brains.
- Methods NFT labeling was performed using anti-tau antibodies: pSer262 for p-NFT, pSer422 for i-NFT, AT8 for e-NFT, RD3 for 3R, and RD4 for 4R tau, and Gallyas impregnation for the NFT population.
- RD4- and pSer422-positive NFT were detected predominantly in sectors from CA2 to CA4, while RD3- and pSer262-positive NFT were predominantly present in CA1, the entorhinal cortex, and the subiculum.
- The tau epitope recognized by pSer262 belongs to 4R tau but it showed a strong correlation with RD3- and AT8-positive NFT.
- Conclusions Sectors CA2-CA4 showed predominantly 4R-NFT containing the pSer422 epitope. pSer262 may detect the process of transformation from p-NFT to i-NFT, and e-NFT consisted predominantly of 3R tau.
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 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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Acta neurologica Scandinavica) |
| 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) |
| 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 16218916) |
| 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 Drug development
Also tagged “relationship”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “relationship”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.