4.7 Article

Progression of amyloid pathology to Alzheimer's disease pathology in an amyloid precursor protein transgenic mouse model by removal of nitric oxide synthase 2

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 1537-1545

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5066-07.2008

关键词

amyloid; tau; neurodegeneration; neuropeptide Y; cerebral amyloid angiopathy; Alzheimer's disease

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [RF1 AG057895, R01 AG019740, F32 AG030942, AG19780, F32 AG030942-01, R01 AG019740-04, AG19740, R01 AG019780-05, AG030942, R01 AG019780] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS055118, NS55118, R01 NS055118-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by three primary pathologies in the brain: amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neuron loss. Mouse models have been useful for studying components of AD but are limited in their ability to fully recapitulate all pathologies. We crossed the APPSwDI transgenic mouse, which develops amyloid beta(A beta)-protein deposits only, with a nitric oxide synthase 2 (NOS2) knock-out mouse, which develops no AD-like pathology. APPSwDI/NOS2(-/-) mice displayed impaired spatial memory compared with the APPSwDI mice, yet they have unaltered levels of A beta. APPSwDI mice do not show tau pathology, whereas APPSwDI/NOS2(-/-) mice displayed extensive tau pathology associated with regions of dense microvascular amyloid deposition. Also, APPSwDI mice do not have any neuron loss, whereas the APPSwDI/NOS2(-/-) mice have significant neuron loss in the hippocampus and subiculum. Neuropeptide Y neurons have been shown to be particularly vulnerable in AD. These neurons appear to be particularly vulnerable in the APPSwDI/NOS2(-/-) mice as we observe a dramatic reduction in the number of NPY neurons in the hippocampus and subiculum. These data show that removal of NOS2 from an APP transgenic mouse results in development of a much greater spectrum of AD-like pathology and behavioral impairments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据