Cited by 91Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms

Transcriptional signatures of brain aging and Alzheimer’s disease: What are our rodent models telling us?

Open access
Hargis, Kendra E, Blalock, Eric M·2017·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Aging is the biggest risk factor for idiopathic Alzheimer's disease (AD). Recently, the National Institutes of Health released AD research recommendations that include: appreciating normal brain aging, expanding data-driven research, using open-access resources, and evaluating experimental reproducibility. Transcriptome data sets for aging and AD in humans and animal models are available in NIH-curated, publically accessible databases. However, little work has been done to test for concordance among those molecular signatures. Here, we test the hypothesis that brain transcriptional profiles from animal models recapitulate those observed in the human condition. Raw transcriptional profile data from twenty-nine studies were analyzed to produce p-values and fold changes for young vs. aged or control vs. AD conditions. Concordance across profiles was assessed at three levels: (1) # of significant genes observed vs. # expected by chance; (2) proportion of significant genes showing directional agreement; (3) correlation among studies for magnitude of effect among significant genes. The highest concordance was found within subjects across brain regions. Normal brain aging was concordant across studies, brain regions, and species, despite profound differences in chronological aging among humans, rats and mice. Human studies of idiopathic AD were concordant across brain structures and studies, but were not concordant with the transcriptional profiles of transgenic AD mouse models. Further, the five transgenic AD mouse models that were assessed were not concordant with one another. These results suggest that normal brain aging is similar in humans and research animals, and that different transgenic AD model mice may reflect selected aspects of AD pathology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.05.007

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our findings are consistent with a complementary study of mouse data from gene expression arrays.

    “Our findings are consistent with a complementary study of mouse data from gene expression arrays (Hargis and Blalock, 2017).”
  • Hargis and Blalock (2017) reported that DEGs were concordant between aging in humans and rodent models, a conclusion supported by our analysis.

    “Hargis and Blalock (2017) reported that DEGs were concordant between aging in humans and rodent models, a conclusion supported by our analysis.”
  • Traditional models created by incorporating a highly penetrant mutation in APP, PSEN1, or PSEN2 onto a single inbred background strain have largely failed to yield successful results in human clinical trials.

    “traditional models created by incorporating a highly penetrant mutation in APP, PSEN1, or PSEN2 onto a single inbred background strain have largely failed to yield successful results in human clinical trials [286, 287]”

    From Genetic architecture of Alzheimer's disease (2020) · cites this paper as [287]

  • Other studies have questioned the overall degree of conservation between AD mouse models and human brains.

    “Although some studies have identified selected overlaps in expression changes between AD mouse models and human brains (Bennett et al., 2018; Castillo et al., 2017; Mostafavi et al., 2018; Neuner et al., 2019; Rojo et al., 2017), other studies have questioned the overall degree of conservation (Burns et al., 2015; Galatro et al., 2017; Hargis and Blalock, 2017).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hargis, K. E., & Blalock, E. M.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Blalock, Eric M
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
322
Issue
Pt B
Pages
311-328
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2346448457
Cited by
90
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
NIH/NIA (AG037868, AG034605)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, brain aging, gene expression signatures, transcriptome, transgenic mouse model, gene expression, brain regions
MeSH terms
Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Species Specificity, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice, Rats, Transcriptome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review