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.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Plain-language summary

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder for which there is no cure. Here, we test a dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist (DA4-JC) that has a cell penetrating sequence added to enhance blood-brain barrier penetration. We show in a receptor activity study that DA4-JC has balanced activity on both GLP-1 and GIP receptors but not on GLP-2 or Glucagon receptors. A dose-response study in the APP/PS1 mouse model of AD showed both a dose-dependent drug effect on the inflammation response and the reduction of amyloid plaques in the brain. When comparing DA4-JC with the GLP-1 analogue liraglutide at equal doses of 10nmol/kg bw ip. once-daily for 8 weeks, DA4-JC was more effective in reversing memory loss, enhancing synaptic plasticity (LTP) in the hippocampus, reducing amyloid plaques and lowering pro-inflammatory cytokine levels in the brain. The results suggest that DA4-JC may be a novel treatment for AD.

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

APA 7th

Maskery, M., Goulding, E. M., Gengler, S., Melchiorsen, J. U., Rosenkilde, M. M., & Hölscher, C. (2020). The Dual GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonist DA4-JC Shows Superior Protective Properties Compared to the GLP-1 Analogue Liraglutide in the APP/PS1 Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317520953041

Vancouver

Maskery M, Goulding EM, Gengler S, Melchiorsen JU, Rosenkilde MM, Hölscher C. The Dual GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonist DA4-JC Shows Superior Protective Properties Compared to the GLP-1 Analogue Liraglutide in the APP/PS1 Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. 2020. doi:10.1177/1533317520953041. PMID: 32959677.

BibTeX

@article{maskery2020-32959677,
  author  = {Maskery, M. and Goulding, E. M. and Gengler, S. and Melchiorsen, J. U. and Rosenkilde, M. M. and Hölscher, C.},
  title   = {{The Dual GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonist DA4-JC Shows Superior Protective Properties Compared to the GLP-1 Analogue Liraglutide in the APP/PS1 Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1177/1533317520953041},
  pmid    = {32959677},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317520953041}
}

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.

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

The results suggest that DA4-JC may be a novel treatment for AD.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias)
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	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 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 “app/ps1”) — 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 32959677)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	24 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total	41 / 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 from nearby years

Also tagged “peptide-1”

285 studies in the library carry the topic tag “peptide-1”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 285 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →