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. Drug development

Topic: Genetics and APOE

Mutations in the human presenilin genes PS1 and PS2 cause early-onset Alzheimer's disease. Studies in Caenorhabditis elegans and in mice indicate that one function of presenilin genes is to facilitate Notch-pathway signaling. Notably, mutations in the C. elegans presenilin gene sel-12 reduce signaling through an activated version of the Notch receptor LIN-12. To investigate the function of a second C. elegans presenilin gene hop-1 and to examine possible genetic interactions between hop-1 and sel-12, we used a reverse genetic strategy to isolate deletion alleles of both loci. Animals bearing both hop-1 and sel-12 deletions displayed new phenotypes not observed in animals bearing either single deletion. These new phenotypes-germ-line proliferation defects, maternal-effect embryonic lethality, and somatic gonad defects-resemble those resulting from a reduction in signaling through the C. elegans Notch receptors GLP-1 and LIN-12. Thus SEL-12 and HOP-1 appear to function redundantly in promoting Notch-pathway signaling. Phenotypic analyses of hop-1 and sel-12 single and double mutant animals suggest that sel-12 provides more presenilin function than does hop-1.

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

APA 7th

Westlund, B., Parry, D., Clover, R., Basson, M., & Johnson, C. D. (1999). Reverse genetic analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans presenilins reveals redundant but unequal roles for sel-12 and hop-1 in Notch-pathway signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.5.2497

Vancouver

Westlund B, Parry D, Clover R, Basson M, Johnson CD. Reverse genetic analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans presenilins reveals redundant but unequal roles for sel-12 and hop-1 in Notch-pathway signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1999. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.5.2497. PMID: 10051671.

BibTeX

@article{westlund1999-10051671,
  author  = {Westlund, B. and Parry, D. and Clover, R. and Basson, M. and Johnson, C. D.},
  title   = {{Reverse genetic analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans presenilins reveals redundant but unequal roles for sel-12 and hop-1 in Notch-pathway signaling}},
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
  year    = {1999},
  doi     = {10.1073/pnas.96.5.2497},
  pmid    = {10051671},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.5.2497}
}

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

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 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 (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America)
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 1999 — 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 Laboratory or animal study (title names “caenorhabditis”) — scores zero
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 10051671)
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 Drug development

Also tagged “dosage”

80 studies in the library carry the topic tag “dosage”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 80 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →