4.5 Article

Visualization of fibrillar amyloid deposits in living, transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans animals using the sensitive amyloid dye, X-34

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 217-226

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0197-4580(00)00237-2

关键词

abeta; amyloid; C. elegans; transgenic; X-34; in vivo staining; immuno-EM; fibrillar ultrastructure; transthyretin; 4G8; BSB

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [R24 RR012596] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG12423] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIH HHS [R24 OD010943] Funding Source: Medline
  4. PHS HHS [12596] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans animals can be engineered to express high levels of the human beta amyloid peptide (Abeta). Histochemistry of fixed tissue from these animals reveals deposits reactive with the amyloid-specific dyes Congo Red and thioflavin S (Fay et al., J. Neurochem 71:1616, 1998). Here we show by immune-electron microscopy that these animals contain intracellular immunoreactive deposits with classic amyloid fibrillar ultrastructure. These deposits can be visualized in living animals using the newly developed, intensively fluorescent, amyloid-specific dye X-34. This in vivo staining allows monitoring of amyloid deposition in individual animals over time. The specificity of this staining is demonstrated by examining transgenic animals expressing high levels of a non-fibrillar beta peptide variant, the beta single-chain dimer, These animals have deposits immunoreactive with anti-beta antibodies, but do not have X-34 deposits or deposits with a fibrillar ultrastructure. X-34 can also be used in vivo to visualize putative amyloid deposits resulting from accumulation of human transthyretin, another amyloidic protein. In vivo amyloid staining with X-34 may be a useful tool for monitoring anti-amyloidic treatments in real time or screening for genetic alterations that affect amyloid formation. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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