Cited by 167Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDNA Repair MechanismsDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

DNA strand breaks in Alzheimer’s disease

Adamec, Emil, Vonsattel, Jean Paul, Nixon, Ralph A.·1999·Brain Research

Abstract

The goal of this study was to investigate the presence of DNA damage in Alzheimer's disease (AD) utilizing independent assays for three different types of DNA strand breaks. Sections from hippocampi of AD brains, brains with Alzheimer neurofibrillary changes (Ch) from non-demented individuals, and controls (C) were labeled with (1) the TUNEL assay to identify blunt-ended and 3' protruding termini of breaks in double-stranded DNA, (2) the Klenow assay to detect single-stranded and double-stranded breaks with protruding 5' termini, and (3) the Apostain assay which utilizes a monoclonal antibody to single-stranded DNA and is based on the decreased stability of apoptotic DNA to thermal denaturation caused by DNA breaks. The highest incidence of nuclei positive for either molecular form of DNA strand breaks was detected in AD, followed by Ch, and controls (C). In either AD and Ch, the incidence of TUNEL- or Klenow-positive nuclei did not differ significantly, but was higher than the incidence of Apostain-positive nuclei. With all three assays, the highest incidence of positive nuclei was in the molecular layer of CA1. In the majority of nuclei positive for either the Klenow or the Apostain assay, the product of the labeling reaction was localized either to the periphery of the nucleus or to distinct clumps of chromatin (or both). With the TUNEL assay, the majority of positive nuclei were diffusely labeled. In both AD and Ch, the individual positive nuclei were labeled with both the Klenow and the TUNEL assays. The results indicate high incidence of nuclei with either double-stranded or single-stranded DNA breaks in AD, which, for the forms detectable with the Klenow or TUNEL assays, were colocalized.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0006-8993(99)02004-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 167

Authors
Adamec, E., Vonsattel, J. P., & Nixon, R. A.
Affiliations
  • McLean Hospital (US)
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Adamec, Emil
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-12
Volume
849
Issue
1-2
Pages
67-77
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010355916
Cited by
167
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (AG000764, P50AG005134, AG 05134)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS31862)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, DNA strand breaks, DNA damage, hippocampus, neurofibrillary tangles, apoptosis, TUNEL, single-stranded DNA, DNA double-strand breaks
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, DNA Damage, Hippocampus, Humans, Neurons, Reference Values, Neurofibrillary Tangles, Apoptosis, Pyramidal Cells, Microscopy, Confocal, Dentate Gyrus, In Situ Nick-End Labeling

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