| Title |
Neuroinflammation impairs adaptive structural plasticity of dendritic spines in a preclinical model of Alzheimer’s disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Neuropathologica, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00401-015-1527-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chengyu Zou, Yuan Shi, Jasmin Ohli, Ulrich Schüller, Mario M. Dorostkar, Jochen Herms |
| Abstract |
To successfully treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), pathophysiological events in preclinical stages need to be identified. Preclinical AD refers to the stages that exhibit amyloid deposition in the brain but have normal cognitive function, which are replicated in young adult APPswe/PS1deltaE9 (deltaE9) mice. By long-term in vivo two-photon microscopy, we demonstrate impaired adaptive spine plasticity in these transgenic mice illustrated by their failure to increase dendritic spine density and form novel neural connections when housed in enriched environment (EE). Decrease of amyloid plaques by reducing BACE1 activity restores the gain of spine density upon EE in deltaE9 mice, but not the remodeling of neural networks. On the other hand, anti-inflammatory treatment with pioglitazone or interleukin 1 receptor antagonist in deltaE9 mice successfully rescues the impairments in increasing spine density and remodeling of neural networks during EE. Our data suggest that neuroinflammation disrupts experience-dependent structural plasticity of dendritic spines in preclinical stages of AD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 25 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,124,593
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica
#794
of 2,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,511
of 392,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica
#23
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 392,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.