4.2 Article

Salivary Aβ Secretion and Altered Oral Microbiome in Mouse Models of AD

期刊

CURRENT ALZHEIMER RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 1133-1144

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1567205018666210119151952

关键词

Microbiome; Alzheimer; amyloid; inflammation; saliva; biomarker

资金

  1. NIH [RF1AG069378, P20GM103442, 1R01AG042819, R01AG048993]
  2. NIH/NIGMS [P20GM113123, U54GM128729]
  3. UND SMHS funds
  4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service project plan [3062-51000-053-00D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Beta amyloid (A beta) peptide containing plaque aggregations in the brain are a hallmark of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). However, A beta is produced by cell types outside of the brain suggesting that the peptide may serve a broad physiologic purpose. Objective: Based upon our prior work documenting expression of amyloid beta precursor protein (APP) in intestinal epithelium we hypothesized that salivary epithelium might also express APP and be a source of A beta. Methods: To begin testing this idea, we compared human age-matched control and AD salivary glands to C57BL/6 wild type, App(NL-G-F), and APP/PS1 mice. Results: Both male and female AD, App(NL-G-F), and APP/PS1 glands demonstrated robust APP and A beta immunoreactivity. Female App(NL-G-F) mice had significantly higher levels of pilocarpine stimulated A beta 1-42 compared to both wild type and APP/PS1 mice. No differences in male salivary A beta levels were detected. No significant differences in total pilocarpine stimulated saliva volumes were observed in any group. Both male and female App(NL-G-F) but not APP/PS1 mice demonstrated significant differences in oral microbiome phylum and genus abundance compared to wild type mice. Male, but not female, APP/PS1 and App(NL-G-F) mice had significantly thinner molar enamel compared to their wild type counterparts. Conclusion: These data support the idea that oral microbiome changes exist during AD in addition to changes in salivary A beta and oral health.

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

4.2
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