Cited by 439Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Alzheimer’s Patient Microglia Exhibit Enhanced Aging and Unique Transcriptional Activation

Open access
Srinivasan, Karpagam, Friedman, Brad A., Etxeberria, Ainhoa, Huntley, Melanie A., van der Brug, Marcel P., Foreman, Oded, Paw, Jonathan S., Modrusan, Zora, Beach, Thomas G., Serrano, Geidy E., Hansen, David V.·2020·Cell Reports

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Damage-associated microglia (DAM) profiles observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related mouse models reflect an activation state that could modulate AD risk or progression. To learn whether human AD microglia (HAM) display a similar profile, we develop a method for purifying cell types from frozen cerebrocortical tissues for RNA-seq analysis, allowing better transcriptome coverage than typical single-nucleus RNA-seq approaches. The HAM profile we observe bears little resemblance to the DAM profile. Instead, HAM display an enhanced human aging profile, in addition to other disease-related changes such as APOE upregulation. Analyses of whole-tissue RNA-seq and single-cell/nucleus RNA-seq datasets corroborate our findings and suggest that the lack of DAM response in human microglia occurs specifically in AD tissues, not other neurodegenerative settings. These results, which can be browsed at http://research-pub.gene.com/BrainMyeloidLandscape, provide a genome-wide picture of microglial activation in human AD and highlight considerable differences between mouse models and human disease.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Human Alzheimer’s disease microglia (HAM) purified from frozen cortex show a transcriptional profile that is largely distinct from the mouse damage-associated microglia (DAM) profile, with a prominent enhanced aging signature and APOE upregulation. The HAM signature is validated across cortical regions and whole-tissue datasets, while DAM-like induction is stronger in multiple sclerosis lesions and human microglia xenotransplanted into 5xFAD mice than in AD microglia.

Key findings

  • In sorted CD11b+ microglia from superior frontal gyrus, genome-wide differential expression identified 45 genes increased and 21 decreased in AD versus control; only APOE upregulation survived genome-wide correction (fold change = 4.1, adjusted p = 0.0004).
  • The HAM profile bore little resemblance to mouse DAM: the mouse neurodegeneration-related/DAM module was only slightly increased in AD microglia (p = 0.045), and among more than 100 module genes only APOE was significantly increased.
  • AD microglia displayed an enhanced human aging phenotype: age-related DE scores were significantly higher in AD microglia than controls, with older-subject genes such as IL15, MS4A6A, MS4A4A, NME8, and GPR141 trending upward and CECR2 trending downward; this was not explained by age differences between groups.
  • Validation in fusiform gyrus qRT-PCR replicated the direction of effect for nearly every DE gene tested (22 genes), and whole-tissue datasets (GSE95587, GSE125583, ROSMAP) showed significant elevation of the HAM-Up gene set, most apparent in later Braak stages. DAM induction was stronger in MS lesion microglia and human xenografted microglia in 5xFAD mouse brains than in AD microglia.

Methods

  • The authors adapted a method for isolating cell types from frozen post-mortem human brain: brief Accutase treatment at 4°C, mechanical dissociation, ethanol fixation, immunolabeling, and FACS for NeuN+ neurons, GFAP+ astrocytes, CD31+ endothelial cells, and CD11b+ microglia/myeloid cells, followed by RNA-seq or qPCR.
  • Frontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) samples were processed from 22 AD and 21 control tissues; after QC, 113 cell-type-specific expression profiles were retained, including microglia profiles from 15 control and 10 AD subjects. Temporal cortex (fusiform gyrus) samples totaled 25 AD and 21 control tissues and were analyzed by qRT-PCR.
  • Analyses included DESeq2 differential expression with Cook’s distance filtering, gene set scoring, myeloid balancing for whole-tissue datasets, and pseudobulk analysis of published single-cell/single-nucleus RNA-seq datasets from AD, MS, and xenotransplanted microglia.

Limitations

  • The paper states that RNA quality after purification was poor, with Bioanalyzer RIN scores typically 1–3 due to freeze-thaw, fixation, and post-mortem tissue processing; alternative dissociation and fixation conditions were unsuccessful or counterproductive.
  • The authors state that the sorted-cell approach does not afford single-cell resolution, and the SFG RNA-seq cohort was small (10 AD and 15 control microglia profiles). They also note that snRNA-seq datasets suffer from extensive gene dropout, making downregulated gene sets difficult to detect.
  • The text makes evident additional limitations: APOE4 carrier status was imbalanced between AD and control groups (0 controls versus 9 AD subjects overall; 0 versus 6 among QC-passing myeloid profiles), and the new whole-tissue cohort had imperfect age matching, with AD cases on average about a half decade younger. The authors also present alternative interpretations for aging-related changes, including possible increased peripheral monocyte/macrophage infiltration versus microglial transcriptional modulation toward a monocyte-like state.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107843

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 11 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 32
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
54 of 54
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Damage from the freeze-thaw process led to cellular disintegration when cells remained unfixed for too long or were incubated at 37°C.

    “We presume that damage from the freeze-thaw process led to cellular disintegration when cells remained unfixed for too long or were incubated at 37°C.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Gray matter atrophy was pronounced in the fusiform gyrus from AD subjects.

    “since gray matter atrophy was pronounced in FuG from AD subjects”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Activated microglia often display elevated CD45 reactivity.

    “since we did not want to exclude activated microglia which often display elevated CD45 reactivity”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There was a lack of other human AD datasets available at the time for cross-comparison.

    “the lack of other human AD datasets available at the time for cross-comparison”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Frontal-cortex AD subject count differs between text and table

    Minor

    The Results state that 22 AD and 21 control SFG tissues were processed, but the sorted-cell cohort table lists 21 AD and 21 control subjects under "All Subjects."

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 52 references

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 439

Metadata

Authors
Srinivasan, K., Friedman, B. A., Etxeberria, A., Huntley, M. A., van der Brug, M. P., Foreman, O., Paw, J. S., Modrusan, Z., Beach, T. G., Serrano, G. E., & Hansen, D. V.
Affiliations
  • Genentech (US)
  • Banner Sun Health Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Friedman, Brad A.
  • Hansen, David V.
Venue
Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
31
Issue
13
Pages
107843
ISSN
2211-1247 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3039072393
Cited by
427
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 18
FWCI
24.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (GSE125050, GSE125583)
  • Genentech
  • Arizona Department of Health Services (211002)
  • Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (0011, 05-901, 1001, 4001)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30 AG19610)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U24 NS072026)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, human microglia, microglial activation, aging, apolipoprotein E, transcriptome, single-nucleus RNA sequencing, single-cell RNA sequencing, mouse model, neuroinflammation
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Female, Frontal Lobe, Frozen Sections, Humans, Male, Monocytes, Multiple Sclerosis, Phenotype, Risk Factors, Temporal Lobe, Reproducibility of Results, Transcriptional Activation, Cellular Senescence, Microglia, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic, Mice, Heterografts

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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