4.6 Article

Cortical iron regulation and inflammatory response in Alzheimer's disease and APPSWE/PS1ΔE9 mice: a histological perspective

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00255

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; APP/PS1; iron; amyloid-beta plaques; histology; ferritin; microglia; astrocyte

资金

  1. NIH [R01AG027771, R03AG047461]
  2. George M. Leader Foundation
  3. Pennsylvania Department of Health using Tobacco Settlement Funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disruption of iron homeostasis and increased glial response are known to occur in brains afflicted by Alzheimer's disease (AD). While the APP/PS1 transgenic mouse model recapitulates the hallmark amyloid-beta plaque pathology of AD, it does so in a different neuronal mileu than humans. Understanding the iron characteristics and glial response of the APP/PS1 model is important when testing new treatment procedures and translating these results. Brain tissue from AD patients, APP/PS1 mice, and controls were stained for iron, H- and L-ferritin, microglia, astrocytes, A beta(40/42), and degenerating neurons. The histological data demonstrate differences in ferritin, iron distribution, gliosis, and A beta plaque composition between APP/PS1 and AD tissue. Specifically, an association between focal iron deposition and A beta plaques is found ubiquitously throughout the AD tissue and is not observed in the APP/PS1 mouse model. Ferritin, microglia, and astrocyte staining show differential response patterns to amyloid plaques in AD and the APP/PS1 tissue. A beta 40 and 42 antibody and thioflavin staining demonstrate morphological differences in plaque composition. The histological data support the hypothesis that iron distribution, iron management, and glial response histologically differ between the APP/PS1 and AD brain. Acknowledging the caveat that there are distinct plaque, iron, and glial contrasts between the AD brain and the APP/PS1 mouse is crucial when utilizing this model.

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

4.6
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