4.7 Article

Intracranial Injection of Gammagard, a Human IVIg, Modulates the Inflammatory Response of the Brain and Lowers Aβ in APP/PS1 Mice Along a Different Time Course than Anti-Aβ Antibodies

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 23, 页码 9684-9692

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1220-13.2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Baxter Biosciences research grant
  2. National Institutes of Health [NS079637, P20GM103486]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gammagard IVIg is a therapeutic approach to treat Alzheimer's disease currently in phase 3 clinical trials. Despite the reported efficacy of the approach the mechanism of action is poorly understood. Wehave previously shown that intracranial injection of anti-A beta antibodies into the frontal cortex and hippocampus reveals important information regarding the time course of events once the agent is in the brain. In the current study we compared IVIg, mouse-pooled IgG, and the anti-A beta antibody 6E10 injected intracranially into the frontal cortex and hippocampus of 7-month-old APP/PS1 mice. We established a time course of events ranging from 1 to 21 d postinjection. IVIg and pooled mouse IgG both significantly reduced A beta deposition to the same degree as the 6E10 anti-A beta antibody; however, the clearance was much slower to occur, happening between the 3 and 7 d time points. In contrast, as we have previously shown, A beta reductions were apparent with the 6E10 anti-A beta group at the 1 d time point. Also, neuroinflammatory profiles were significantly altered by the antibody treatments. APP/PS1 transgenic mice at 7 months of age typically exhibit an M2a inflammatory phenotype. All antibody treatments stimulated an M2b response, yet anti-A beta antibody was a more rapid change. Because the neuroinflammatory switch occurs before the detectable reductions in amyloid deposition, we hypothesize that the IVIg and pooled mouse IgG act as immune modulators and this immune modulation is responsible for the reductions in amyloid pathology.

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