4.6 Article

A Phenotypic Change But Not Proliferation Underlies Glial Responses in Alzheimer Disease

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 182, Issue 6, Pages 2332-2344

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.02.031

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [AG08487, P50-AG05134]
  2. Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Classical immunohistochemical studies in the Alzheimer disease (AD) brain reveal prominent glial reactions, but whether this pathological feature is due primarily to cell proliferation or to a phenotypic change of existing resting cells remains controversial. We performed double-fluorescence immunohistochemical studies of astrocytes and microglia, followed by unbiased stereology-based quantitation in temporal cortex of 40 AD patients and 32 age-matched nondemented subjects. Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and major histocompatibility complex II (MHC2) were used as markers of astrocytic and microglial activation, respectively. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 L1 and glutamine synthetase were used as constitutive astrocytic markers, and ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule 1 (IBA1) as a constitutive microglial marker. As expected, AD patients had higher numbers of GFAP(+) astrocytes and MHC2(+) microglia than the nondemented subjects. However, both groups had similar numbers of total astrocytes and microglia and, in the AD group, these total numbers remained essentially constant over the clinical course of the disease. The GFAP immunoreactivity of astrocytes, but not the MHC2 immunoreactivity of microglia, increased in parallel with the duration of the clinical illness in the AD group. Cortical atrophy contributed to the perception of increased glia density. We conclude that a phenotypic change of existing glial cells, rather than a marked proliferation of glial precursors, accounts for the majority of the glial responses observed in the AD brain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available