4.3 Article

A shift to glycolysis accompanies the inflammatory changes in PBMCs from individuals with an IQ-discrepant memory

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMMUNOLOGY
卷 317, 期 -, 页码 24-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2018.02.007

关键词

Inflammatory cytokines; Chemokines; Cognitive function; Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs); Monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs); Glycolysis; Metabolism; PFKFB3

资金

  1. Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship (Irish Research Council) [GOIPG/2013/331]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [15/iA/3052]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [15/IA/3052] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification of a blood-based biomarker that can detect early cognitive decline presents a significant healthcare challenge. We prepared peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from individuals who had a poorer than predicted performance in their delayed recall performance on the Logical Memory II Subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) relative to their IQ estimated by the National Adult Reading Test (NART); we described these individuals as IQ-discrepant, compared with IQ-consistent, individuals. Stimulation with A beta + LPS increased production of TNF alpha to a greater extent in cells from IQ-discrepant, compared with IQ-consistent, individuals. This was associated with a shift towards glycolysis and the evidence indicates that 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-biphosphatase (PFKFB)3 plays a role in driving glycolysis. A similar shift towards glycolysis was observed in MDMs prepared from IQ-discrepant, compared with IQ-consistent, individuals. The important finding here is that we have established an increased sensitivity to A beta + LPS stimulation in PBMCs from individuals that under-perform on a memory task, relative to their estimated premorbid IQ, which may be an indicator of early cognitive decline. This may be a useful tool in determining the presence of early cognitive dysfunction.

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

4.3
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