The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 60 of the 83 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
APOE4 impairs the microglial response in Alzheimer’s disease by inducing TGFβ-mediated checkpoints
Open accessAbstract
The APOE4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). The contribution of microglial APOE4 to AD pathogenesis is unknown, although APOE has the most enriched gene expression in neurodegenerative microglia (MGnD). Here, we show in mice and humans a negative role of microglial APOE4 in the induction of the MGnD response to neurodegeneration. Deletion of microglial APOE4 restores the MGnD phenotype associated with neuroprotection in P301S tau transgenic mice and decreases pathology in APP/PS1 mice. MGnD-astrocyte cross-talk associated with β-amyloid (Aβ) plaque encapsulation and clearance are mediated via LGALS3 signaling following microglial APOE4 deletion. In the brains of AD donors carrying the APOE4 allele, we found a sex-dependent reciprocal induction of AD risk factors associated with suppression of MGnD genes in females, including LGALS3, compared to individuals homozygous for the APOE3 allele. Mechanistically, APOE4-mediated induction of ITGB8-transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) signaling impairs the MGnD response via upregulation of microglial homeostatic checkpoints, including Inpp5d, in mice. Deletion of Inpp5d in microglia restores MGnD-astrocyte cross-talk and facilitates plaque clearance in APP/PS1 mice. We identify the microglial APOE4-ITGB8-TGFβ pathway as a negative regulator of microglial response to AD pathology, and restoring the MGnD phenotype via blocking ITGB8-TGFβ signaling provides a promising therapeutic intervention for AD.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Microglial APOE4 cell-autonomously suppresses the neurodegenerative microglia (MGnD) response to Alzheimer’s disease pathology via ITGB8–TGFβ signaling and homeostatic checkpoints such as INPP5D. Deleting microglial APOE4, deleting Inpp5d, or blocking ITGB8 restores MGnD/astrocyte cross-talk and reduces pathology in mouse AD models.
Key findings
- APOE4-expressing microglia showed upregulated homeostatic genes including *Tgfbr2*, *Inpp5d*, *Spi1* and *Smad3* versus APOE3 microglia (RNA-seq, n = 11–14 mice/group), and after apoptotic-neuron injection APOE4 microglia failed to induce MGnD genes such as *Clec7a*, *Itgax*, *Lilr4b*, *Lpl*, *Lgals3* and *Spp1*; phagocytic FCRLS+CD11b+ microglia were reduced (n = 7 APOE3-KI, n = 9 APOE4-KI).
- Conditional deletion of microglial APOE4 restored MGnD signatures and was neuroprotective in P301S tau mice, with reduced neuronal loss in cortical layer 5 (n = 7–10 mice/group), and in APP/PS1 mice increased Clec7a^hi Lgals3^hi MGnD, reduced HJ3.4B+ plaque pathology and reduced LAMP1+ dystrophic neurites.
- Mechanistically, APOE4 induced ITGB8–TGFβ signaling; cortical *Itgb8* deletion or anti-ITGB8 neutralizing antibody induced MGnD genes and reduced Aβ plaque size in APP/PS1 mice (n = 8 IgG-treated, n = 9 anti-ITGB8-treated), while anti-ITGB8 restored CLEC7A and GFAP in APP/PS1:APOE4-KI mice (n = 11 ROIs from 6–7 mice/group). Microglial *Inpp5d* deletion also induced MGnD and reduced plaque load.
- In human AD brains, APOE3/APOE4 heterozygosity showed sex-dependent effects: females had reduced MGnD/astrocyte genes including *LGALS3*, *GFAP*, *VIM* and *S100A* and increased AD risk genes including *ABCA7*, *IFNAR1*, *APP*, *BIN1*, *CD33*, *HAVCR2* and *SMAD3*; pSMAD3 was increased in IBA1+ cells (n = 27 APOE3/3 cells, n = 33 APOE3/4 cells), and LGALS3 immunoreactivity was reduced (n = 8 APOE3/3, n = 9 APOE3/4 donors). Males showed increased *ITGB8*.
Methods
- Mouse genetics: APOE3-KI and APOE4-KI mice, conditional microglial deletion via Cx3cr1-CreERT2, and crosses to APP/PS1 and P301S tau models; stereotactic injections of apoptotic neurons, recombinant LGALS3, anti-ITGB8 antibody, PU.1 inhibitor, and adoptive transfer of phagocytic microglia.
- Human tissue: postmortem AD brain samples from Netherlands Brain Bank and Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; RNA-seq donors included 12 AD APOE3/3 and 13 AD APOE3/4 cases, with additional IHC and RNAscope cohorts.
- Main assays/analyses: FACS, bulk RNA-seq/Smart-seq2, scRNA-seq, H3K9ac ChIP-seq, lipidomics, immunohistochemistry, RNAscope, RT-qPCR; DESeq2 likelihood-ratio tests, Seurat clustering, IPA/NicheNet/CellTalkDB cross-talk analysis, t-tests and one-way ANOVA.
Limitations
- The paper has no dedicated limitations section; it states that Cx3cr1-CreERT2 may also affect border-associated macrophages, albeit to a lesser extent, and cautions that prior LGALS3 literature used global *Lgals3*-KO or pre-cultured Aβ models, so microglial-derived LGALS3 conclusions should be interpreted carefully.
- Evident from the text: human analyses are cross-sectional postmortem comparisons with modest sex-stratified donor numbers (e.g., RNA-seq male n = 5–7, female n = 6–7; IHC n = 8–9), limiting causal and sex-specific inference.
- Evident from the text: most mechanistic evidence comes from transgenic mouse models and intracranial injections, so translation to human AD progression and therapeutic dosing remains untested.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
137 Own result · 36 Own interpretation · 25 Own method · 19 Supported · 17 Partly supported · 6 Sources not found · 2 Supported so far · 2 No full text of the sources · 2 No basis given · 1 Not supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The APOE4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD).”
- Also stated in: § A list of authors and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper · p. 2 · plain
“The APOE4 allele is a major genetic risk factor for late-onset AD and was previously shown to accelerate AD progression in humans and in mouse models 6-11 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Farrer, L. A. et al. Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium. JAMA 278, 1349–1356 (1997). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Corder, E. H. et al. Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families. Science 261, 921–923 (1993). source
- Partly supportedcites [8] Strittmatter, W. J. et al. Apolipoprotein E: high-avidity binding to β-amyloid and increased frequency of type 4 allele in late-onset familial Alzheimer disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90, 1977–1981 (1993). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The allele-association passage (labeled Materials and Methods; page not provided) reports a significantly higher APOE-e4 frequency in familial Alzheimer disease patients than in controls, supporting its importance as a genetic risk factor. The paper does not compare APOE-e4 with other genetic risk factors to establish the citing sentence’s claim that it is the strongest, and its findings concern predominantly late-onset familial disease rather than all late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Raber, J. et al. Isoform-specific effects of human apolipoprotein E on brain function revealed in ApoE knockout mice: increased susceptibility of females. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 10914–10919 (1998). source
- Supportedcites [10] Youmans, K. L. et al. APOE4-specific changes in Aβ accumulation in a new transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer disease. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 41774–41786 (2012). source
The Abstract states that APOE4 is the primary genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease and gives increased risks for carriers of one or two alleles. The paper does not explicitly say “late-onset” in that passage, but its risk-factor statement supports the citing sentence’s characterization. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites [11] Liu, D. S. et al. APOE4 enhances age-dependent decline in cognitive function by down-regulating an NMDA receptor pathway in EFAD-Tg mice. Mol. Neurodegener. 10, 7 (2015). source
The Introduction explicitly calls APOE4 “the greatest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease” and reports substantially increased risk compared with APOE3. This supports the citing sentence’s description of APOE4 as the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset AD. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § A list of authors and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper · p. 2 · plain
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We identified that neurodegenerative microglia (MGnD) 4 , also referred to as disease-associated microglia 5 , are regulated by the reciprocal suppression of transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) and induction of apolipoprotein E (APOE) signaling in different neurodegenerative models, including AD 4 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Krasemann, S. et al. The TREM2–APOE pathway drives the transcriptional phenotype of dysfunctional microglia in neurodegenerative diseases. Immunity 47, 566–581 (2017). source
The Results section titled “Reciprocal induction of APOE and suppression of TGFβ signaling in disease-associated microglia” identifies this pattern across EAE, SOD1 and APP-PS1 models, including the AD model. The Discussion calls MGnD disease-associated microglia and identifies APOE and TGFβ as major regulators. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [5] Keren-Shaul, H. et al. A unique microglia type associated with restricting development of Alzheimer’s disease. Cell 169, 1276–1290 (2017). source
Citation 5 identifies the cells as disease-associated microglia (DAM); the Introduction and Results explicitly use that name for a microglial subtype found in an AD mouse model. The TGFβ–APOE regulatory claim is attached to citation 4, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Genome -wide association meta -analysis studies (GWASs) 1,2 and interactome investigation 3 identified microglia gene expression patterns as strongly correlated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [1] Jansen, I. E. et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies new loci and functional pathways influencing Alzheimer’s disease risk. Nat. Genet. 51, 404–413 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (page unavailable) reports associations between Alzheimer’s disease risk genes and microglia-specific expression in both mouse and human datasets. But the associations did not survive the stringent Bonferroni correction, and the paper does not report a strong correlation between microglial expression patterns themselves and late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [2] Wightman, D. P. et al. A genome-wide association study with 1,126,563 individuals identifies new risk loci for Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Genet. 53, 1276–1282 (2021). source
The Tissue type, cell type and gene-set enrichment section reports that expression of LOAD-associated genes was significantly associated in six single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets, with microglia the only significant cell type in all six. This supports the citing sentence’s broad characterization of a strong association, though the paper describes enrichment rather than reporting a correlation coefficient. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [3] Nott, A. et al. Brain cell type-specific enhancer–promoter interactome maps and disease-risk association. Science 366, 1134–1139 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed passage on AD genetics and the microglia interactome (page unavailable) links AD-risk variants to microglia-specific enhancers and identifies 25 microglial genes linked to those variants. This supports an association between microglial gene regulation and AD risk, but it does not report that microglial gene-expression patterns are strongly correlated with late-onset AD. (LLM, conf=0.83)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the central nervous system, APOE is upregulated in MGnD 4,5 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Krasemann, S. et al. The TREM2–APOE pathway drives the transcriptional phenotype of dysfunctional microglia in neurodegenerative diseases. Immunity 47, 566–581 (2017). source
The Results section on disease-associated microglia reports that Apoe was among the most upregulated genes in the MGnD-associated microglial subset. Another Results section reports Apoe upregulation during disease progression in CNS disease models. These passages support the citing sentence’s claim. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Partly supportedcites [5] Keren-Shaul, H. et al. A unique microglia type associated with restricting development of Alzheimer’s disease. Cell 169, 1276–1290 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that Apoe expression increases as microglia transition from a homeostatic state to disease-associated microglia (DAM) in an Alzheimer’s mouse model (page unavailable). The paper calls this population DAM, not MGnD, and does not establish in our copy that the two labels are interchangeable. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In previous studies, brain regions of P301S: APOE4 -KI mice demonstrate marked neurodegeneration compared to P301S: APOE3 -KI mice at 9.5 months of age, although the MGnD phenotype was similar between the two groups 12,21 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] Wang, C. et al. Selective removal of astrocytic APOE4 strongly protects against tau-mediated neurodegeneration and decreases synaptic phagocytosis by microglia. Neuron 109, 1657–1674 (2021). source
The Results section (page unavailable) states that P301S mice with human APOE4 knocked in develop significantly more hippocampal and entorhinal/piriform cortex volume loss than APOE3-expressing mice at the age studied. The paper identifies that age as 9.5 months. This confirms the quoted neurodegeneration comparison. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Partly supportedcites [21] Shi, Y. et al. ApoE4 markedly exacerbates tau-mediated neurodegeneration in a mouse model of tauopathy. Nature 549, 523–527 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports significantly more brain atrophy in P301S/E4 than P301S/E3 mice, particularly in the hippocampus, piriform/entorhinal cortex, and amygdala. The reported comparison is at 9 months, not the claimed 9.5 months (main text, page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.88)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In previous studies, brain regions of P301S: APOE4 -KI mice demonstrate marked neurodegeneration compared to P301S: APOE3 -KI mice at 9.5 months of age, although the MGnD phenotype was similar between the two groups 12,21 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] Wang, C. et al. Selective removal of astrocytic APOE4 strongly protects against tau-mediated neurodegeneration and decreases synaptic phagocytosis by microglia. Neuron 109, 1657–1674 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports a DAM/MGnD microglial shift in both P301S/APOE3 and P301S/APOE4 mice and no major differences in microglial subcluster proportions. However, the Discussion says DAM/MGnD gene-expression elevations were greater with APOE4 than with APOE3, so describing the phenotype as simply similar omits that difference. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Could not verifycites [21] Shi, Y. et al. ApoE4 markedly exacerbates tau-mediated neurodegeneration in a mouse model of tauopathy. Nature 549, 523–527 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports greater brain atrophy and neuroinflammation in P301S/E4 than P301S/E3 mice (Abstract, page unavailable), but the claim at issue is that their MGnD phenotypes were similar. A search for “MGnD” found no passage in our copy assessing or comparing that phenotype; the reported microglial gene-expression differences do not settle this specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Neurodegeneration is a pathological hallmark of AD 20 , which is exacerbated in a mouse model of tauopathy expressing APOE4 (refs. 12,21).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] Wang, C. et al. Selective removal of astrocytic APOE4 strongly protects against tau-mediated neurodegeneration and decreases synaptic phagocytosis by microglia. Neuron 109, 1657–1674 (2021). source
The Introduction reports that, in P301S tauopathy mice, APOE4 expression significantly increased neuronal loss and brain-volume loss compared with other APOE isoforms. The Discussion likewise concludes that astrocyte-derived APOE4 contributes to tau-mediated neurodegeneration in a mouse model of tauopathy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [21] Shi, Y. et al. ApoE4 markedly exacerbates tau-mediated neurodegeneration in a mouse model of tauopathy. Nature 549, 523–527 (2017). source
The paper states that ApoE4 aggravated neurodegeneration in the context of tau pathology. Its Extended Data Figure 9 summary also describes greater degeneration with ApoE4 than with other ApoE isoforms in the tauopathy model. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“SPI1, also known as PU.1, binds SMAD3 to establish a homeostatic gene regulatory landscape in microglia 18 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [18] Gosselin, D. et al. Environment drives selection and function of enhancers controlling tissue-specific macrophage identities. Cell 159, 1327–1340 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections on PU.1 co-localization and natural genetic variation (pages not provided) report that SMAD motifs, including a SMAD3 recognition motif, are associated with PU.1 binding at microglia-specific sites. They do not demonstrate that PU.1 directly binds SMAD3 or establish that this interaction creates a homeostatic gene regulatory landscape. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The induction of MGnD genes in microglia with deletions in Itgb8 , Tgfbr2 , Nrros or Smad2 / Smad3 (Extended Data Fig. 9e-h) is associated with the suppression of AD risk factor genes, including Bin1 , Havcr2 and Inpp5d 1,2 (Fig. 8j, Extended Data Fig. 9i-l and Supplementary Table 8).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [1] Jansen, I. E. et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies new loci and functional pathways influencing Alzheimer’s disease risk. Nat. Genet. 51, 404–413 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections on implicated genes and microglial gene sets discuss genetic associations with Alzheimer’s disease, but do not identify Bin1, Havcr2 or Inpp5d as risk-factor genes in the passages retrieved. Searches for those genes and for the specified deletions found no passage addressing their suppression or its association with MGnD induction. The cited paper’s copy therefore does not verify the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites [2] Wightman, D. P. et al. A genome-wide association study with 1,126,563 individuals identifies new risk loci for Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Genet. 53, 1276–1282 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 1 (Functional enrichment of significantly associated regions; page unavailable) lists BIN1 and HAVCR2 as Alzheimer’s disease risk loci, and Gene prioritization discusses HAVCR2. The table prints “INPPD5,” not INPP5D, so our copy does not clearly establish the third named gene. The microglial-deletion and gene-suppression findings are presented with the citing authors’ own figure and table references, not attributed to this GWAS. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Analysis of public single-nucleus RNA-seq data 35 of astrocytes from the brains of individuals with AD that are homozygous for the APOE3 allele and those that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles confirmed that the percentage of GFAP hi and SERPINA3 + astrocytes is increased in donors that are homozygous for the APOE3 allele compared to in those that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [35] Zhou, Y. et al. Human and mouse single-nucleus transcriptomics reveal TREM2-dependent and TREM2-independent cellular responses in Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Med. 26, 131–142 (2020). source
The citation is attached to the public single-nucleus RNA-seq data, not to the citing authors’ subsequent APOE-genotype comparison. The Results section on astrocytes describes the source paper’s analysis of astrocyte nuclei from human AD samples, supporting its identification as the dataset used. That section does not itself report the claimed GFAP-high and SERPINA3-positive genotype comparison. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
- Rests on an assumption: Publicly available human scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq datasets are representative and comparable for APOE genotype analyses.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Additional characterization of microglia by analyzing the acute response to neurodegeneration via intracranial injection of apoptotic neurons 4 showed upregulation of antigen presentation- and IFNγ signaling-related genes in Itgb8 -cKO mice compared to in control mice (Extended Data Fig. 8e-g and Supplementary Table 8).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Krasemann, S. et al. The TREM2–APOE pathway drives the transcriptional phenotype of dysfunctional microglia in neurodegenerative diseases. Immunity 47, 566–581 (2017). source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“we found a similar observation in an independent cohort described by Zhou et al. 35 showing increased expression of SPI1 , TGFB1 and GRN in microglia isolated from the brains of individuals with AD that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7h and Extended Data Fig. 6b,c).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [35] Zhou, Y. et al. Human and mouse single-nucleus transcriptomics reveal TREM2-dependent and TREM2-independent cellular responses in Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Med. 26, 131–142 (2020). source
The citation identifies the independent cohort, while the SPI1, TGFB1 and GRN finding is presented as the citing authors’ own observation in their Fig. 7h. Zhou et al.’s Results section (‘Human brain AD gene signatures are distinct from those of the 5XFAD model’; page unavailable) describes the human AD brain cohort and its microglial transcriptomic analysis, supporting that identification. It does not itself report the three-gene, APOE3/APOE4-specific finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
- Rests on an assumption: Publicly available human scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq datasets are representative and comparable for APOE genotype analyses.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, recent studies showed that microglial deletion of Inpp5d protects against plaque-induced neuronal dystrophy in transgenic AD mice 41,42 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [41] Samuels, J. D. et al. The Alzheimer’s disease risk factor INPP5D restricts neuroprotective microglial responses in amyloid β-mediated pathology. Alzheimer’s Dement. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13089 (2023). source
Section 3.4 reports significantly fewer APP-positive dystrophic neurites near Aβ plaques in 5xFAD mice with microglial Inpp5d deletion than in 5xFAD littermate controls. This supports the claim of protection against plaque-associated neuronal dystrophy in a transgenic AD mouse model. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Iguchi, A. et al. INPP5D modulates TREM2 loss-of-function phenotypes in a β-amyloidosis mouse model. iScience 26, 106375 (2023). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Analysis of publicly available human brain scRNA-seq data 34 showed increased expression of TGFβ-signaling genes and downstream AD risk factor genes, including INPP5D , in females that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] Olah, M. et al. Single cell RNA sequencing of human microglia uncovers a subset associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Commun. 11, 6129 (2020). source
The citation appears immediately after “publicly available human brain scRNA-seq data,” identifying the dataset used rather than attributing the subsequent analysis result to Olah et al. In Results > Nature and distribution of the single-cell RNA sequencing data (page unavailable), the paper says it generated human cortical single-cell RNA-seq data and made them publicly available. The claimed TGFβ- and INPP5D-expression finding is not reported in the cited passages, but is presented as the citing authors’ analysis. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
- Rests on an assumption: Publicly available human scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq datasets are representative and comparable for APOE genotype analyses.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We detected upregulation of ITGB8, which plays a critical role in the activation of latent TGFβ1 (ref. 36) in males with AD that carry the APOE4 allele.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [36] Travis, M. A. et al. Loss of integrin αvβ8 on dendritic cells causes autoimmunity and colitis in mice. Nature 449, 361–365 (2007). source
The paper’s Abstract identifies αvβ8, which contains the ITGB8-encoded β8 subunit, as a TGF-β-activating integrin and identifies TGF-β1 as an isoform activated by integrins. It also reports reduced TGF-β activity in β8-deficient dendritic cells. This supports the attributed role in latent TGF-β1 activation; the citation does not support the separate observation about APOE4 carriers, which is presented as the citing authors’ own finding. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We recently showed impaired MGnD responses in APOE4 -KI glaucoma mice, similar to Apoe -/-mice 14 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] Margeta, M. A. et al. Apolipoprotein E4 impairs the response of neurodegenerative retinal microglia and prevents neuronal loss in glaucoma. Immunity 55, 1627–1644 (2022). source
The Results section, “APOE4 retinal microglia remain homeostatic in glaucoma,” reports that APOE4 microglia had an attenuated MGnD molecular signature after IOP elevation and explicitly says this was similar to the response in Apoe−/− mice. The Methods section identifies the mice as carrying a human APOE4 allele in place of endogenous murine Apoe. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These findings in mice and in humans suggest that APOE4 predisposes to AD pathology in part via the induction of TGFβ-dependent microglia homeostatic regulators 13 that impair microglia-astrocyte cross-talk in response to neurodegeneration.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] Butovsky, O. et al. Identification of a unique TGF-β-dependent molecular and functional signature in microglia. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 131–143 (2014). source
The Results report that TGF-β is important for microglial development and maintenance, and the Discussion identifies a TGF-β1-dependent microglial molecular signature relevant to homeostatic function (page numbers unavailable). The citation is attached to the TGF-β-dependent microglial regulators, not to the citing authors’ broader APOE4 and microglia–astrocyte cross-talk hypothesis. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models of AD (APP/PS1, tau, P301S) faithfully represent key aspects of human AD pathology and microglial responses.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Moreover, reactive astrocytes play a beneficial role in limiting AD pathology, and their depletion in AD mice results in increased plaque load, synaptic dysfunction and memory loss 51 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [51] Katsouri, L. et al. Ablation of reactive astrocytes exacerbates disease pathology in a model of Alzheimer’s disease. Glia 68, 1017–1030 (2020). source
The Discussion states that reactive proliferating astrocytes can exert a neuroprotective effect in AD and links their reduction to increased amyloid pathology in APP23 mice. The finding is bounded to this mouse model and this astrocyte population. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, microglial APOE4 shows increased nuclear localization in AD brains 45 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [45] Rohn, T. T. & Moore, Z. D. Nuclear localization of apolipoprotein E4: a new trick for an old protein. Int. J. Neurol. Neurother. 4, 067 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Nuclear Localization of ApoE4” section reports strong labeling of an ApoE4 fragment within microglia in AD brain tissue and nuclear trafficking of that fragment in cultured microglial cells. The “Mechanism of Nuclear Trafficking of ApoE” section also reports nuclear labeling in AD brain tissue. Neither passage establishes that nuclear localization is increased in microglia of AD brains relative to a comparator. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Importantly, ITGB8 blockade resulted in an increased IFNγ response, which we recently showed to play a critical role in the acquisition of beneficial pre-MGnD in AD mice 60 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [60] Yin, Z. et al. Identification of a protective microglial state mediated by miR-155 and interferon-λ signaling in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Neurosci. 26, 1196–1207 (2023). source
The Discussion states that experiments modulating IFNγ showed the pathway directly regulates the transition to pre-MGnD microglia. It also describes pre-MGnD microglia as protective against plaque-associated pathology in the AD mouse model. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, APOE4-expressing microglia demonstrated an impaired response to acute neurodegeneration and exhibited reduced phagocytic IBA1 + cell numbers in the injection site compared to APOE3-expressing microglia (Fig. 1i and Extended Data Fig. 1g,h).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, APOE4-expressing microglia demonstrated an impaired response to acute neurodegeneration and exhibited reduced phagocytic IBA1 + cell numbers in the injection site compared to APOE3-expressing microglia (Fig. 1i and Extended Data Fig. 1g,h).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) comparing phagocytic to non-phagocytic APOE3- and APOE4-expressing microglia revealed a dysfunctional response of APOE4-expressing microglia to phagocytosis of dead neurons and antigen presentation (Extended Data Fig. 1f and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunostaining of microglia in the injection site showed accumulation of LAMP1 + lysosomes in IBA1 + APOE4-expressing microglia compared to in APOE3-expressing microglia (Fig. 1i,j).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Epigenetic analysis of genomic DNA bound to lysine 9 acetylated histone 3 (H3K9ac) by anti-H3K9ac chromatin immunoprecipitation with sequencing (ChIP-seq) analysis of isolated microglia revealed that APOE4-expressing microglia displayed reduced chromatin acetylation compared to APOE3-expressing microglia (Extended Data Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“APOE4-expressing phagocytic microglia, however, failed to induce an MGnD response of key genes, including Clec7a , Itgax , Lilr4b , Lpl , Lgals3 and Spp1 (Fig. 1g, Extended Data Fig. 1c-e and Supplementary Table 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, APOE4-expressing microglia failed to upregulate the expression of genes associated with phagocytosis, antigen presentation, interferon-γ (IFNγ) signaling and autophagosome maturation in response to phagocytosis of apoptotic neurons (Fig. 1h and Supplementary Table 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reduction in LGALS3 immunoreactivity, a key MGnD marker 4,14 , was also observed in APOE4 mice compared to APOE3 mice in response to apoptotic neuron injection (Fig. 1k,l).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 restores the MGnD phenotype associated with neuroprotection in P301S tau transgenic mice and decreases pathology in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the brains of AD donors carrying the APOE4 allele, we found a sex-dependent reciprocal induction of AD risk factors associated with suppression of MGnD genes in females, including LGALS3 , compared to individuals homozygous for the APOE3 allele.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of Inpp5d in microglia restores MGnD-astrocyte cross-talk and facilitates plaque clearance in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis of the injection site using the microglia-specific marker FCRLS 4,13,14 demonstrated impaired phagocytosis of dead neurons by FCRLS + CD11b + APOE4-expressing microglia compared to APOE3-expressing microglia (Fig. 1d,e).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“APOE3-expressing phagocytic microglia showed induction of an MGnD profile compared to non-phagocytic microglia isolated from the same mice (Fig. 1f,g and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 restores the MGnD phenotype associated with neuroprotection in P301S tau transgenic mice and decreases pathology in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, genomic regions associated with a homeostatic microglia signature, such as Inpp5d , Havcr2 and Smad3 , showed enrichment for H3K9ac in APOE4-expressing microglia compared to in APOE3-expressing microglia (Extended Data Fig. 1b and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of Inpp5d in microglia restores MGnD-astrocyte cross-talk and facilitates plaque clearance in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cluster 3 was enriched for reactive astrocyte genes, including Gfap , Vim , Cd9 and Serpina3n , compared to cluster 5 (ref. 29; Fig. 5a, Extended Data Fig. 5a,b and Supplementary Table 5).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ref. 29
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microglial APOE4 deletion further induced the expression of Apoe , Ttr , Cd9 , Vim , Gfap and Serpina3n in cluster 3 (Fig. 5b).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microglia sorted from the brains of P301S: APOE3 -KI mice at 9 months of age demonstrated upregulation of key MGnD genes, including Clec7a , Lgals3 and Itgax , and downregulation of TGFβ-signaling molecules, including Smad3 and Tgfb1 , compared to microglia isolated from WT: APOE3 -KI mice (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 3).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found reduced expression of Serpina3n and Gfap in mice injected with APOE4 -MGnD compared to those injected with APOE3 -MGnD (Fig. 5k).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“P301S: APOE 4-KI mice showed increased neuronal loss in cortical layer 5 compared to P301S: APOE3 -KI mice, whereas neuronal loss was significantly reduced in P301S mice with a deletion in microglial APOE4 compared to age-matched P301S: APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 3g,h).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microglial Spi1 deletion in APP/PS1 mice resulted in a reduction in plaque load and enhanced CLEC7A + MGnD around plaques (Fig. 2d-g).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, by comparing Spi1 deletion and APOE4 deletion in phagocytic microglia (Fig. 1o), we identified common MGnD and homeostatic genes induced and downregulated, respectively, in both conditions (Fig. 2c).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unsupervised clustering identified six clusters showing microglia-like expression profiles (Extended Data Fig. 3a-c and Supplementary Table 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry showed decreased GFAP immunoreactivity around Aβ plaques in APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice compared to that observed in APP/PS1: APOE3 -KI mice, whereas APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice showed restored GFAP immunoreactivity (Fig. 5e,f).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry confirmed the increased accumulation of Plin2 + lipid droplets in microglia in APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice, which was reduced following the conditional deletion of APOE4 in microglia (Extended Data Fig. 4b,c).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The restoration of an MGnD phenotype in APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice was accompanied by a significant reduction in HJ3.4B + Aβ plaque pathology (Fig. 4k,l) and LAMP1 + dystrophic neurites (Fig. 4m,n).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cross-talk analysis identified LGALS3 as the top microglial ligand interacting with astrocyte receptors after deletion of APOE4 in microglia (Fig. 6a and Supplementary Table 5).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 restored the expression of key MGnD genes and downregulation of homeostatic genes in response to phagocytosis of apoptotic neurons (Fig. 1o, Extended Data Fig. 1i and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that microglial APOE4 deletion was sufficient to restore CLEC7A immunoreactivity and the MGnD signature in P301S mice, which was associated with reduced tau hyperphosphorylation (Fig. 3d-f and Supplementary Table 3).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RNA-seq analysis of microglia isolated from APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice treated with PU.1 pharmacological inhibitors showed an induction of the MGnD signature and suppression of homeostatic genes (Fig. 2h).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, microglia from P301S: APOE4 -KI mice showed reduced MGnD and an increased TGFβ-signaling signature compared to microglia from age-matched P301S: APOE3 -KI mice (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 3).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that microglial APOE4 deletion was sufficient to restore CLEC7A immunoreactivity and the MGnD signature in P301S mice, which was associated with reduced tau hyperphosphorylation (Fig. 3d-f and Supplementary Table 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, Clec7a hi Lgals3 hi microglia exhibited an enhanced MGnD signature compared to Clec7a hi Lgals3 lo microglia in APP/ PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice (Fig. 4f and Supplementary Table 4).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry confirmed decreased CLEC7A immunoreactivity in cortical microglia of P301S: APOE4 -KI mice, which exhibited increased tau hyperphosphorylation compared to age-matched P301S: APOE3 -KI mice (Fig. 3d,e).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 restored the expression of key MGnD genes and downregulation of homeostatic genes in response to phagocytosis of apoptotic neurons (Fig. 1o, Extended Data Fig. 1i and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microglial Spi1 deletion in APP/PS1 mice resulted in a reduction in plaque load and enhanced CLEC7A + MGnD around plaques (Fig. 2d-g).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RNA-seq analysis of sorted microglia showed restoration of the MGnD signature in APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice compared to APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 4c and Supplementary Table 4).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, by comparing Spi1 deletion and APOE4 deletion in phagocytic microglia (Fig. 1o), we identified common MGnD and homeostatic genes induced and downregulated, respectively, in both conditions (Fig. 2c).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An increased proportion of Clec7a hi Lgals3 hi MGnD was detected following microglial deletion of APOE4 in APP/PS1 mice (Fig. 4d,e, Extended Data Fig. 3g,h and Supplementary Table 4).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microglia sorted from the brains of P301S: APOE3 -KI mice at 9 months of age demonstrated upregulation of key MGnD genes, including Clec7a , Lgals3 and Itgax , and downregulation of TGFβ-signaling molecules, including Smad3 and Tgfb1 , compared to microglia isolated from WT: APOE3 -KI mice (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 3).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of Spi1 in microglia enhanced the expression of MGnD genes, including Clec7a and Lgals3 , whereas homeostatic genes were downregulated, including Tgfb1 , Cd33 and Inpp5d (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Table 2).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“scRNA-seq analysis of brain cells isolated from APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI and APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice identified two astrocyte clusters (3 and 5).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RNA-seq analysis of microglia isolated from APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice treated with PU.1 pharmacological inhibitors showed an induction of the MGnD signature and suppression of homeostatic genes (Fig. 2h).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The restoration of an MGnD phenotype in APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice was accompanied by a significant reduction in HJ3.4B + Aβ plaque pathology (Fig. 4k,l) and LAMP1 + dystrophic neurites (Fig. 4m,n).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We detected increased levels of certain lipid species in APOE4 -KI microglia compared to that observed in APOE3 -KI microglia, which were more pronounced on the APP/PS1 background (Extended Data Fig. 4a and Supplementary Table 4).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry confirmed the increased accumulation of Plin2 + lipid droplets in microglia in APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice, which was reduced following the conditional deletion of APOE4 in microglia (Extended Data Fig. 4b,c).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“identified three major subtypes, which we labeled (1) M0 (homeostatic microglia), which express Tmem119 , P2ry12 and Gpr34 , (2) MGnD, which express Clec7a , Lgals3 and Spp1 , and (3) IFN microglia, which are enriched for Stat1 , Irf7 and Ilfit1”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FACS analysis of cells isolated from the injection site showed increased recruitment of FCRLS + CD11b + microglia in APOE4 -cKO mice compared to in APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 1m,n).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, APOE immunoreactivity in GFAP + astrocytes was also restored in APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice (Fig. 5e,g), confirming results from the scRNA-seq analysis (Fig. 5b).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, LGALS3 immunoreactivity was increased in the injection site of APOE4 -cKO mice compared to in APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 1p,q).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of Spi1 in microglia enhanced the expression of MGnD genes, including Clec7a and Lgals3 , whereas homeostatic genes were downregulated, including Tgfb1 , Cd33 and Inpp5d (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Table 2).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“NicheNetR analysis of differentially regulated ligands in phagocytic microglia and their autocrine interactions with microglial receptors identified LGALS3 as one of the top ligands that is highly affected by APOE4 deletion (Extended Data Fig. 1i and Supplementary Table 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that microglial APOE4 deletion was sufficient to restore CLEC7A immunoreactivity and the MGnD signature in P301S mice, which was associated with reduced tau hyperphosphorylation (Fig. 3d-f and Supplementary Table 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IPA of astrocytes from APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice showed upregulation of metabolic pathways, including cholesterol biosynthesis, response to oxidative stress, HIF1α and IGF-1 signaling (Fig. 5d).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“P301S: APOE 4-KI mice showed increased neuronal loss in cortical layer 5 compared to P301S: APOE3 -KI mice, whereas neuronal loss was significantly reduced in P301S mice with a deletion in microglial APOE4 compared to age-matched P301S: APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 3g,h).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry confirmed decreased CLEC7A immunoreactivity in cortical microglia of P301S: APOE4 -KI mice, which exhibited increased tau hyperphosphorylation compared to age-matched P301S: APOE3 -KI mice (Fig. 3d,e).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“neurites was enhanced in microglia with an APOE3 deletion (Fig. 4n).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, microglia from P301S: APOE4 -KI mice showed reduced MGnD and an increased TGFβ-signaling signature compared to microglia from age-matched P301S: APOE3 -KI mice (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 3).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry showed decreased GFAP immunoreactivity around Aβ plaques in APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice compared to that observed in APP/PS1: APOE3 -KI mice, whereas APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice showed restored GFAP immunoreactivity (Fig. 5e,f).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportion of CLEC7A + and LGALS3 + microglia associated with Aβ plaques was significantly reduced in APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice, despite the increased plaque pathology in APP/PS1 mice expressing APOE4 compared to APOE3 (Fig. 4g-j).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportion of CLEC7A + and LGALS3 + microglia associated with Aβ plaques was significantly reduced in APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice, despite the increased plaque pathology in APP/PS1 mice expressing APOE4 compared to APOE3 (Fig. 4g-j).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 in APP/PS1 mice resulted in increased recruitment of CLEC7A + and LGALS3 + MGnD to Aβ plaques (Fig. 4g-j).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, microglial APOE4 deletion increased the ratio of Gfap hi Apoe hi , Gfap hi Serpina3n hi , Gfap hi Vim hi and Gfap hi Cd9 hi astrocytes (Fig. 5c and Extended Data Fig. 5c).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice, treatment with monoclonal neutralizing antibody to ITGB8 restored the expression of CLEC7A and GFAP associated with reduced plaque pathology (Fig. 8o,p).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of note, Lgals3 expression was absent in astrocytes (Supplementary Table 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microglial deletion of Inpp5d induced the MGnD response in APP/PS1 mice (Extended Data Fig. 10a,b and Supplementary Table 8) associated with reduced Aβ plaque load, as determined by Thioflavin-S and HJ3.4B staining (Extended Data Fig. 10c,d,h,j).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, APOE4-expressing microglia showed increased Inpp5d expression levels (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 6d,e) and enriched Inpp5d locus histone acetylation (Extended Data Fig. 1b).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, APOE4-expressing microglia showed increased Inpp5d expression levels (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 6d,e) and enriched Inpp5d locus histone acetylation (Extended Data Fig. 1b).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, 14 d after injection, we found a significant decrease in Aβ plaque size (Fig. 8m,n) in mice treated with anti-ITGB8 compared to control-treated mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“NichNetR receptor-ligand analysis of microglia-astrocyte cross-talk in response to apoptotic neurons (Fig. 1m) identified LGALS3 as the top ligand (Fig. 6h).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also observed increased GFAP immunoreactivity colocalized with CLEC7A + MGnD in the cortex of Itgb8 -cKO mice (Fig. 8b-d).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry of cortical tissue from females with AD that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles confirmed the reduction in LGALS3 immunoreactivity and its colocalization with IBA1 + microglia associated with Aβ plaques (Fig. 7f,g and Supplementary Table 7).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Functional characterization showed induced phagosome formation, antigen presentation, chemokine signaling and IFNγ signaling in cortical microglia of Itgb8 -cKO mice (Extended Data Fig. 8d).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the expression of SMAD3 , a downstream adaptor of TGFβ signaling 33 , was upregulated in the brains of females with AD heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7b,d and Supplementary Tables 6 and 7).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry of APP/PS1 mice 14 d after treatment with 100 ng of rLGALS3 demonstrated increased astrocyte association with Aβ plaques and reduced plaque load compared to APP/PS1 mice treated with PBS (Fig. 6d,e).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“injection of rLGALS3 into APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice restored CLEC7A and GFAP induction and reduced plaque load (Fig. 6k,l).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry confirmed increased major histocompatibility complex class II + (MHC class II + ) immunoreactivity around the injection site (Extended Data Fig. 8j,k).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“including reciprocal upregulation of Gfap , Serpina3n , Ttr and Vim (Fig. 6f) and downregulation of Itgav and Tgfb1 (Fig. 6g and Supplementary Table 5).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the expression of astrocyte activation genes, including CST3 , HSP90AB1 and ALDOC , was reduced, while TGFβ1-signaling-related genes, including TGFBR3 , TGFB2 and ITGB8 , were significantly increased in expression in individuals that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7n).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found reduced expression of S100A , GFAP , VIM and LGALS3 in the brains of female individuals heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7b,c and Supplementary Tables 6 and 7).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also confirmed that GFAP immunoreactivity associated with Aβ plaques was reduced in the brains of females with AD that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles compared to those that are homozygous for the APOE3 allele (Fig. 7k,l and Supplementary Table 7).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three days after injection in 4-month-old APP/PS1 mice, microglia increased antigen presentation and IFNγ signaling (Fig. 8k,l).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LGALS3-mediated interactions with astrocytes were reduced in APOE4-expressing microglia phagocytosing apoptotic neurons compared to APOE3-expressing microglia”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry of cortical tissue from females with AD that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles confirmed the reduction in LGALS3 immunoreactivity and its colocalization with IBA1 + microglia associated with Aβ plaques (Fig. 7f,g and Supplementary Table 7).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, we show a cell-autonomous negative regulation of microglial APOE4 in the acquisition of the MGnD phenotype in response to neurodegeneration.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the increased MGnD response in association with Aβ plaques was accompanied by increased GFAP + immunoreactivity following the deletion of microglial Inpp5d (Extended Data Fig. 10m,n).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, RNAscope showed reduced Itgb8 expression in astrocytes from APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice compared to in those from APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice (Extended Data Fig. 6j,k).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using Cx3cr1 Cre : Smad2 / Smad3 fl/fl mice, we confirmed that microglial Smad2 / Smad3 deletion results in the suppression of Tmem119 and enhanced expression of MGnD molecules, including Cd68 and Apoe , associated with astrocyte activation (Extended Data Fig. 9a-d).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“rLGALS3 suppressed the astrocytic expression of Itgb8 and Itgav (subunits of integrin α v β8 (ref. 30; Fig. 6b,c and Supplementary Table 5)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice, treatment with monoclonal neutralizing antibody to ITGB8 restored the expression of CLEC7A and GFAP associated with reduced plaque pathology (Fig. 8o,p).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RNA-seq analysis of astrocytes 3 d after rLGALS3 injection showed upregulation of Serpina3n and Vim 29 in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 6b,c).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, Inpp5d deletion in microglia was sufficient to reduce LAMP1 + dystrophic neurites in APP/PS1 mice (Extended Data Fig. 10k,l).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, deletion of Itgb8 promoted microglial Aβ phagocytosis in response to acute cranial injection of Aβ (Extended Data Fig. 8h,i).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry of APP/PS1 mice 14 d after treatment with 100 ng of rLGALS3 demonstrated increased astrocyte association with Aβ plaques and reduced plaque load compared to APP/PS1 mice treated with PBS (Fig. 6d,e).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found a significant reduction in the expression levels of MGnD genes, including CLEC7A , AXL , LYZ , CD300LG and HLA -DQB2 , and an induction in expression of the upstream regulator of TGFβ signaling ITGB8 in the brains of male individuals with AD heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7a and Supplementary Tables 6 and 7).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, AD risk factor genes, including Bin1 , Inpp5d and Havcr2 , were reduced in expression in all datasets (Fig. 8j, Extended Data Fig. 9i-l and Supplementary Table 8).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas microglial APOE4 deletion restored these interactions (Fig. 6h-j and Supplementary Table 5).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“among the top genes upregulated in the brains of females with AD heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles were several AD risk factor genes, including ABCA7 , IFNAR1 , APP , BIN1 , CD33 and HAVCR2 (Fig. 7b,d and Supplementary Table 6)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Induction of an MGnD response was restored in mice with tau and amyloid pathology in which microglial APOE4 was deleted, resulting in improved neuronal survival, reduction in plaque pathology and increased microglial and astrocytic association with Aβ plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry confirmed SMAD3 activation and phosphorylated SMAD3 (pSMAD3) immunoreactivity in IBA1 + microglia in females with AD that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7i,j and Supplementary Table 7).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“injection of rLGALS3 into APP/PS1: APOE4 -KI mice restored CLEC7A and GFAP induction and reduced plaque load (Fig. 6k,l).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found a significant reduction in the expression levels of MGnD genes, including CLEC7A , AXL , LYZ , CD300LG and HLA -DQB2 , and an induction in expression of the upstream regulator of TGFβ signaling ITGB8 in the brains of male individuals with AD heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7a and Supplementary Tables 6 and 7).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“KEGG analysis showed enrichment of pathways associated with neurodegenerative diseases, reactive oxygen species, phagosome formation and proteolysis in females with AD that are homozygous for the APOE3 allele (Fig. 7e).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the expression of astrocyte activation genes, including CST3 , HSP90AB1 and ALDOC , was reduced, while TGFβ1-signaling-related genes, including TGFBR3 , TGFB2 and ITGB8 , were significantly increased in expression in individuals that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7n).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, the expression of MGnD genes, such as APOE , SPP1 , HLA-DQB1 and LGALS3 , was reduced in females that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Extended Data Fig. 6a).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
- Rests on an assumption: Publicly available human scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq datasets are representative and comparable for APOE genotype analyses.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These astrocytes showed a marked overlap with cluster 3 astrocytes from APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gene expression profiles of cortical microglia from Emx1 Cre : Itgb8 fl/fl mice were correlated with Tgfbr2 -cKO microglia (Fig. 8j) and previously published microglia transcriptomes from Nrros -KO 40 and Smad2 / Smad3 -cKO mice (Extended Data Fig. 9e-h).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Wong, K. et al. Mice deficient in NRROS show abnormal microglial development and neurological disorders. Nat. Immunol. 18, 633–641 (2017). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RNAscope analysis confirmed the induction of ITGB8 in GFAP + astrocytes in males with AD that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles compared to those that are homozygous for the APOE3 allele (Extended Data Fig. 6g-i).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
In the paper
“Of note, cortical microglia in Itgb8 -cKO mice did not express the peripheral monocyte lineage gene Ms4a3 (ref. 39; Supplementary Table 8).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ref. 39
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Induction of an MGnD response was restored in mice with tau and amyloid pathology in which microglial APOE4 was deleted, resulting in improved neuronal survival, reduction in plaque pathology and increased microglial and astrocytic association with Aβ plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE3 reduced CLEC7A expression to levels comparable to APOE4 KI in P301S mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Induction of an MGnD response was restored in mice with tau and amyloid pathology in which microglial APOE4 was deleted, resulting in improved neuronal survival, reduction in plaque pathology and increased microglial and astrocytic association with Aβ plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Targeting microglial APOE4 restores neuro degenerative microglia in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with these findings, we found that expression of the transcription factor PU.1 was upregulated in APOE4 -KI microglia, and its deletion in microglia resulted in a robust induction of MGnD genes, including Lgals3 .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, we found reduced LGALS3 among the top 100 differentially regulated genes in the brains of female AD donors with the APOE4 allele.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heat map of lipids significantly altered by genotype in microglia isolated from APOE3-KI, APOE4-KI, APP/PS1:APOE3-KI, and APP/PS1:APOE4-KI.”
plaincorrelationaln = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 6 | Impaired induction of MGnD signature and astrocyte activation in APOE ε4 AD brains.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Olah et al. 34
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al. 35
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In brains from females with AD that carry the APOE4 allele, PU.1 expression was associated with increased SMAD3 expression levels, which would reinforce the microglial homeostatic signature as a downstream molecule of TGFβ signaling 13,18,49 .”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 promotes astrocyte activation in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Induction of an MGnD response was restored in mice with tau and amyloid pathology in which microglial APOE4 was deleted, resulting in improved neuronal survival, reduction in plaque pathology and increased microglial and astrocytic association with Aβ plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, pharmacological blockade of ITGB8-TGFβ signaling enhanced the response of MGnD associated with increased plaque clearance in mice with AD.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences of APOE expression between P301S:APOE3-KI and P301S:APOE4-KI mice.”
plainn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, ITGB8 blockade resulted in an increased IFNγ response, which we recently showed to play a critical role in the acquisition of beneficial pre-MGnD in AD mice 60 .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 6 | Impaired induction of MGnD signature and astrocyte activation in APOE ε4 AD brains.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Olah et al. 34
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al. 35
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 16 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We detected upregulation of ITGB8, which plays a critical role in the activation of latent TGFβ1 (ref. 36) in males with AD that carry the APOE4 allele.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 alleviates lipid dysregulation in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirectn = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with these findings, we found that expression of the transcription factor PU.1 was upregulated in APOE4 -KI microglia, and its deletion in microglia resulted in a robust induction of MGnD genes, including Lgals3 .”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that deletion of microglial APOE4 in APP/PS1 mice promotes astrocyte activation and encapsulation of Aβ plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the brains of females with AD that carry the APOE4 allele, we identified the induction of SMAD3 and INPP5D signaling associated with downregulation of MGnD genes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gene ontology network of increased DEGs in microglia from Itgb8-cKO mice compared to WT littermates.”
plaincorrelationaln = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 8 | Blocking Itgb8 signaling enhances MGnD response and reduces AD pathology in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 8 | Blocking Itgb8 signaling enhances MGnD response and reduces AD pathology in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MGnD-astrocyte cross-talk associated with β-amyloid (Aβ) plaque encapsulation and clearance are mediated via LGALS3 signaling following microglial APOE4 deletion.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mechanistically, APOE4-mediated induction of ITGB8transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) signaling impairs the MGnD response via upregulation of microglial homeostatic checkpoints, including Inpp5d , in mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identify the microglial APOE4-ITGB8-TGFβ pathway as a negative regulator of microglial response to AD pathology”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, we show in mice and humans a negative role of microglial APOE4 in the induction of the MGnD response to neurodegeneration.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest a beneficial role of MGnD in limiting AD pathology, which is disrupted by APOE4, and the deletion of APOE4 in microglia is sufficient to restore the MGnD response to phagocytic stress and neurodegeneration.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings indicate that APOE4 predisposes microglia toward a homeostatic signature that interferes with microglial responses to acute neurodegeneration, and targeting microglial APOE4 or PU.1 can restore MGnD induction.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis confirmed deletion of the human APOE gene in microglia expressing Cx3cr1 CreERT2 (Fig. 3b), with no significant difference in APOE immunoreactivity comparing P301S: APOE3 -KI and P301S: APOE4 -KI mice (Extended Data Fig. 2a,b).”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, microglial APOE4 deletion restored cross-talk with astrocytes (Fig. 5l and Supplementary Table 5).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest a beneficial role of MGnD in limiting AD pathology, which is disrupted by APOE4, and the deletion of APOE4 in microglia is sufficient to restore the MGnD response to phagocytic stress and neurodegeneration.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that microglial expression of APOE4 is important for the MGnD response to tau-mediated neurodegeneration in the cortex, and its deletion in microglia delays neuron loss.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 restores protective MGnD”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deletion of microglial APOE4 mitigates AD pathology in mice”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest a beneficial role of MGnD in limiting AD pathology, which is disrupted by APOE4, and the deletion of APOE4 in microglia is sufficient to restore the MGnD response to phagocytic stress and neurodegeneration.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunostaining for human APOE protein and GFAP validated the deletion of APOE in IBA1 + microglia in APP/PS1: APOE3 -cKO and APP/PS1: APOE4 -cKO mice, despite the detection of APOE immunoreactivity in plaques and astrocytes (Fig. 5e).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis confirmed deletion of the human APOE gene in microglia expressing Cx3cr1 CreERT2 (Fig. 3b), with no significant difference in APOE immunoreactivity comparing P301S: APOE3 -KI and P301S: APOE4 -KI mice (Extended Data Fig. 2a,b).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“APOE4 impairs the microglial response via PU.1”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that microglial expression of APOE4 is important for the MGnD response to tau-mediated neurodegeneration in the cortex, and its deletion in microglia delays neuron loss.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 5 | Targeting microglial APOE4 promotes astrocyte activation and recruitment to plaques in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“which is critical for the activation of latent TGFβ1 (ref. 36)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ref. 36
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, pharmacological targeting of ITGB8-TGFβ signaling in AD can promote the MGnD response and astrocyte activation and provides an approach for therapeutic modulation of innate immunity in AD and dementia.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these findings show increased TGFβ signaling in APOE4 carriers, which may predispose the development of AD via the inhibition of MGnD and astrocyte responses to neurodegeneration.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, these results strongly support a critical role of ITGB8-TGFβ signaling in the regulation of an MGnD response in AD pathology.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 6 | Deletion of microglial APOE4 promotes astrocyte activation and recruitment to plaques via LGALS3 in APP/PS1 and P301S mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings support the critical role of MGnD expressing LGALS3 in promoting astrocyte activation and their recruitment to plaques.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, pharmacological targeting of ITGB8-TGFβ signaling in AD can promote the MGnD response and astrocyte activation and provides an approach for therapeutic modulation of innate immunity in AD and dementia.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings in humans are in line with our previous results demonstrating enriched Spi1 expression in APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 1a,b) and restoration of the MGnD signature following genetic deletion of Spi1 (Fig. 2a,b and Supplementary Table 2).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these findings show increased TGFβ signaling in APOE4 carriers, which may predispose the development of AD via the inhibition of MGnD and astrocyte responses to neurodegeneration.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data support the beneficial role of MGnD in restricting AD pathology and identify the ITGB8-TGFβ axis as a therapeutic intervention for AD.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models of AD (APP/PS1, tau, P301S) faithfully represent key aspects of human AD pathology and microglial responses.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In brains from females with AD that carry the APOE4 allele, PU.1 expression was associated with increased SMAD3 expression levels, which would reinforce the microglial homeostatic signature as a downstream molecule of TGFβ signaling 13,18,49 .”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“APOE4 impairs microglial response to acute neurodegeneration.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data support the beneficial role of MGnD in restricting AD pathology and identify the ITGB8-TGFβ axis as a therapeutic intervention for AD.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Mouse models of AD (APP/PS1, tau, P301S) faithfully represent key aspects of human AD pathology and microglial responses.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A TGFβ-enriched milieu in the brains of individuals with AD that carry the APOE4 allele suppressed astrocyte activation, consistent with previous reports showing astrocyte suppression in response to the TGFβ ligand 50 , and deletion of Tgfbr2 (ref. 31) or Smad2 / Smad3 activates astrocytes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 9 | Microglial deletion of Smad2/3 induces MGnD phenotype.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 10 | Microglial deletion of the homeostatic checkpoint Inpp5d facilitates plaque clearance via the induction of MGnD response.”
plaindirectn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- Probably not a substantial claim. 40
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Thus, APOE4 converges to impair the MGnD response to neurodegeneration, which plays a protective role in glaucoma 14 and is detrimental in AD.”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [14] Margeta, M. A. et al. Apolipoprotein E4 impairs the response of neurodegenerative retinal microglia and prevents neuronal loss in glaucoma. Immunity 55, 1627–1644 (2022). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source supports the claim that APOE4 dampens the MGnD response, but says the opposite about that response’s role in glaucoma. Its Results section (“MGnD microglia directly induce RGC degeneration in vivo”; page not available) reports that MGnD microglia caused retinal ganglion cell loss. The Abstract says impaired activation of APOE4 microglia—not the MGnD response—is protective in glaucoma. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The APOE4 allele is a major genetic risk factor for late-onset AD and was previously shown to accelerate AD progression in humans and in mouse models 6-11 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Farrer, L. A. et al. Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium. JAMA 278, 1349–1356 (1997). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Corder, E. H. et al. Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families. Science 261, 921–923 (1993). source
- Partly supportedcites [8] Strittmatter, W. J. et al. Apolipoprotein E: high-avidity binding to β-amyloid and increased frequency of type 4 allele in late-onset familial Alzheimer disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90, 1977–1981 (1993). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The allele-association passage reports a significantly higher APOE-e4 frequency in people with familial Alzheimer disease than in controls, supporting the genetic-risk portion of the citing sentence. It does not show that APOE4 accelerates disease progression in humans or mouse models; searches for progression and mouse models found no such result. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Raber, J. et al. Isoform-specific effects of human apolipoprotein E on brain function revealed in ApoE knockout mice: increased susceptibility of females. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 10914–10919 (1998). source
- Partly supportedcites [10] Youmans, K. L. et al. APOE4-specific changes in Aβ accumulation in a new transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer disease. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 41774–41786 (2012). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports accelerated Aβ accumulation in E4FAD mice, supporting the mouse-model portion of the claim. The Abstract reports greater plaque deposition with APOE4 in humans and transgenic mice and identifies APOE4 as a major AD risk factor, but it does not establish accelerated clinical AD progression in humans. The paper's evidence is chiefly about amyloid pathology, not the full course of AD. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [11] Liu, D. S. et al. APOE4 enhances age-dependent decline in cognitive function by down-regulating an NMDA receptor pathway in EFAD-Tg mice. Mol. Neurodegener. 10, 7 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports earlier onset of cognitive deficits in human APOE4 carriers, but says evidence for a faster rate of cognitive decline is conflicting. The Discussion reports a more rapid early decline in spatial recognition memory in E4FAD mice. Thus, the source supports the mouse finding and earlier human onset, but not an unqualified claim that APOE4 accelerates AD progression in humans. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Of note, using Cx3cr1 CreERT2 mice to delete microglial genes may also affect border-associated macrophages (BAMs) 16 , albeit to a lesser extent as BAMs were shown to be continuously replenished from skull bone marrow, unlike microglia 17 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [16] Goldmann, T. et al. Origin, fate and dynamics of macrophages at central nervous system interfaces. Nat. Immunol. 17, 797–805 (2016). source
The Results section (“Maintenance of pvMΦ, mMΦ and cpMΦ in adulthood”) reports that Cx3cr1CreER-mediated recombination labeled macrophages at CNS borders as well as microglia. This supports the cited point that using this system to delete microglial genes may also affect border-associated macrophages. The sentence attributes the separate claim about skull-bone-marrow replenishment to citation 17, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [17] Cugurra, A. et al. Skull and vertebral bone marrow are myeloid cell reservoirs for the meninges and CNS parenchyma. Science 373, eabf7844 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not available) says skull and vertebral marrow continuously replenish monocytes and neutrophils at CNS borders and that marrow-derived monocytes can become meningeal macrophages. The Introduction describes microglia as self-maintained. The paper does not establish that BAMs as a group are continuously replenished, or that Cx3cr1 CreERT2-mediated deletion affects them to a lesser extent; the latter part of the citing sentence is the portion attached to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A recent report showed that deletion of APOE4 in astrocytes markedly reduced neurodegeneration in a mouse model of tauopathy 12 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] Wang, C. et al. Selective removal of astrocytic APOE4 strongly protects against tau-mediated neurodegeneration and decreases synaptic phagocytosis by microglia. Neuron 109, 1657–1674 (2021). source
The Abstract states that removing astrocytic APOE4 markedly reduced tau-mediated neurodegeneration in P301S tau mice. The Discussion likewise reports that genetic deletion after the onset of tau pathology strongly attenuated neurodegeneration. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Importantly, low expression of PU.1 was suggested by a recent GWAS to be protective against AD 19 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [19] Huang, K. L. et al. A common haplotype lowers PU.1 expression in myeloid cells and delays onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 1052–1061 (2017). source
The Abstract reports that a protective allele identified in a genome-wide survival analysis is associated with lower SPI1 expression in myeloid cells; SPI1 encodes PU.1. It concludes that lower SPI1 expression may reduce AD risk, matching the citing sentence’s tentative wording. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Neurodegeneration is a pathological hallmark of AD 20 , which is exacerbated in a mouse model of tauopathy expressing APOE4 (refs. 12,21).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [20] Serrano-Pozo, A., Frosch, M. P., Masliah, E. & Hyman, B. T. Neuropathological alterations in Alzheimer disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 1, a006189 (2011). source
The paper’s Abstract identifies neuronal and synaptic loss as neuropathological hallmarks of AD. It also describes losses of neurons, neuropil, and synaptic elements as core features. Citation 20 supports the first clause; the separate claim about the APOE4 mouse model is attributed to other references. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“the latter of which encodes the checkpoint molecule TIM3, one of the most promising new therapeutic approaches in cancer 32 that was recently described in a GWAS as an AD risk gene 2 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [32] Wolf, Y., Anderson, A. C. & Kuchroo, V. K. TIM3 comes of age as an inhibitory receptor. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20, 173–185 (2020). source
The cited review identifies TIM3 as an inhibitory receptor linked to HAVCR2 and, in ‘Role of TIM3 in cancer and chronic viral infections’ (page not provided), calls it an attractive target for checkpoint-targeted cancer immunotherapy. Its ‘Conclusion and perspective’ reports promising clinical results from targeting TIM3. The AD GWAS assertion is attached to a different citation and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [2] Wightman, D. P. et al. A genome-wide association study with 1,126,563 individuals identifies new risk loci for Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Genet. 53, 1276–1282 (2021). source
Table 1 (Functional enrichment of significantly associated regions) lists HAVCR2 at a genomic risk locus for Alzheimer’s disease, and Gene prioritization reports that the locus’s lead variant lies in a HAVCR2 intron. Citation 2 supports the GWAS risk-gene attribution; the separate citation 32 is attached to the statement about cancer therapy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“subunits of integrin α v β8 (ref. 30; Fig. 6b,c and Supplementary Table 5), which plays a critical role in TGFβ activation and microglia homeostatic maturation 31”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [30] Munger, J. S. & Sheppard, D. Cross talk among TGF-β signaling pathways, integrins, and the extracellular matrix. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 3, a005017 (2011). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “TGF-b Activation by RGD-Binding Integrins” (page unavailable) says that αvβ8 activates TGF-β1 and TGF-β3. Our copy does not address microglial homeostatic maturation, so it supports the activation claim but not that additional role. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [31] Arnold, T. D. et al. Impaired αVβ8 and TGFβ signaling lead to microglial dysmaturation and neuromotor dysfunction. J. Exp. Med. 216, 900–915 (2019). source
The Discussion describes integrin αvβ8 and TGFβ signaling as essential to coordinating microglial maturation with early brain development. It also identifies latent TGFβ activation as αvβ8’s principal biological function. The paper cautions that it did not directly prove the proposed mechanism by which activated TGFβ signals to microglia, but the citing sentence does not specify that mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These results support previous reports demonstrating that higher PU.1 expression in humans is likely to result in earlier AD onset 19,48 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [19] Huang, K. L. et al. A common haplotype lowers PU.1 expression in myeloid cells and delays onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 1052–1061 (2017). source
The Abstract reports that an allele associated with lower SPI1 expression in human monocytes and macrophages is also associated with delayed AD onset; SPI1 encodes PU.1. The Conditional and SMR analysis section says the shared genetic association supports a possible causal link. Together, these support the citing sentence’s hedged inference about higher expression and earlier onset, though they do not establish it experimentally in humans. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [48] Pimenova, A. A. et al. Alzheimer’s-associated PU.1 expression levels regulate microglial inflammatory response. Neurobiol. Dis. 148, 105217 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports a human-associated SPI1 haplotype linked to lower PU.1 expression and delayed AD onset, which supports the claimed direction of association. It does not report that higher PU.1 expression was shown to cause earlier onset in humans; this paper’s own experiments used mouse microglial cells. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We recently demonstrated that APOE4 impairs the response of neurodegenerative retinal microglia via LGALS3 signaling associated with neuroprotection in glaucoma 14 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] Margeta, M. A. et al. Apolipoprotein E4 impairs the response of neurodegenerative retinal microglia and prevents neuronal loss in glaucoma. Immunity 55, 1627–1644 (2022). source
The Abstract reports that APOE4-expressing retinal microglia did not upregulate Lgals3 after intraocular-pressure elevation and that APOE4 mice were protected from retinal ganglion cell loss. The Discussion identifies APOE–Galectin-3 signaling as a pathway relevant to neuroprotective treatment in glaucoma. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, reactive astrocytes play a beneficial role in limiting AD pathology, and their depletion in AD mice results in increased plaque load, synaptic dysfunction and memory loss 51 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [51] Katsouri, L. et al. Ablation of reactive astrocytes exacerbates disease pathology in a model of Alzheimer’s disease. Glia 68, 1017–1030 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections on synaptic density and memory report synaptic loss and worsened spatial-memory performance after ablation of proliferating reactive astrocytes in APP23 mice. But the Results section on amyloid-β (page unavailable) explicitly reports no significant change in amyloid plaque burden measured by Thio-S staining; increased amyloid-β staining is not the same as increased plaque load. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Interestingly, APOE4 was shown to be associated with a decreased risk of glaucoma 54-56 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] Mabuchi, F. et al. The apolipoprotein E gene polymorphism is associated with open angle glaucoma in the Japanese population. Mol. Vis. 11, 609–612 (2005).
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] Lam, C. Y. et al. Association of apolipoprotein E polymorphisms with normal tension glaucoma in a Chinese population. J. Glaucoma 15, 218–222 (2006). source
- Supportedcites [56] Margeta, M. A. et al. Association of APOE with primary open-angle glaucoma suggests a protective effect for APOE ε4. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 61, 3 (2020). source
The Discussion states that APOE ε4 is inversely associated with primary open-angle glaucoma, most strongly with normal-tension glaucoma. This supports the citing sentence’s general description of a decreased risk of glaucoma. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although TGFβ signaling was suggested to play both beneficial and detrimental roles in AD 57 , its overproduction in astrocytes promotes cerebrovascular fibrosis and amyloidosis 58 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [57] Tesseur, I. et al. Deficiency in neuronal TGF-β signaling promotes neurodegeneration and Alzheimer’s pathology. J. Clin. Invest. 116, 3060–3069 (2006). source
The Introduction explicitly says that previous findings suggest TGF-βs are likely to have both beneficial and detrimental effects in AD. The separate claim about astrocytic overproduction is attached to citation 58, not the citation being audited. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, TGFβ1 is implicated in vascular dementia to promote abnormal vascular remodeling and was proposed as a therapeutic target for AD 59 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [59] Kandasamy, M. et al. TGF-β signaling: a therapeutic target to reinstate regenerative plasticity in vascular dementia? Aging Dis. 11, 828–850 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The sections on VaD pathogenesis and vascular remodeling link TGF-β1 to vascular degeneration, fibrosis, and abnormal remodeling in vascular dementia. The paper proposes targeting TGF-β signaling to treat vascular dementia, but does not specifically propose it as a therapeutic target for Alzheimer’s disease (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A TGFβ-enriched milieu in the brains of individuals with AD that carry the APOE4 allele suppressed astrocyte activation, consistent with previous reports showing astrocyte suppression in response to the TGFβ ligand 50 , and deletion of Tgfbr2 (ref. 31) or Smad2 / Smad3 activates astrocytes.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] Arnold, T. D. et al. Impaired αVβ8 and TGFβ signaling lead to microglial dysmaturation and neuromotor dysfunction. J. Exp. Med. 216, 900–915 (2019). source
The citation is attached specifically to Tgfbr2 deletion, not Smad2/Smad3 deletion. The Results section (page unavailable) reports that loss of TGFβ signaling in microglia following Tgfbr2 deletion leads to early postnatal astrocyte activation; it does not establish that Tgfbr2 was deleted in astrocytes themselves. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although LGALS3 was reported to promote Aβ oligomerization and toxicity, these studies were performed using either global Lgals3 -KO mice or Aβ monomers precultured with LGALS3 before injection into the brain 52,53 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [52] Boza-Serrano, A. et al. Galectin-3, a novel endogenous TREM2 ligand, detrimentally regulates inflammatory response in Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neuropathol. 138, 251–273 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports that galectin-3 accompanied the formation of insoluble Aβ aggregates after Aβ monomers were injected into mouse hippocampi; Aβ alone produced no such deposits. The Discussion also links galectin-3 to harmful Aβ-associated inflammatory responses and reduced cognitive performance in 5xFAD mice. But the paper does not establish that galectin-3 promotes Aβ oligomerization specifically, or directly demonstrate increased toxicity of Aβ oligomers. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [53] Tao, C. C. et al. Galectin-3 promotes Aβ oligomerization and Aβ toxicity in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Cell Death Differ. 27, 192–209 (2020). source
The Discussion (page unavailable) states that Gal-3 facilitates Aβ oligomerization, and the Results report significantly less oligomerization in Gal-3-knockout mice than in wild-type mice after Aβ injection. The paper also describes Gal-3 as promoting Aβ toxicity, consistent with the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In addition to the classical role of APOE in cholesterol transport, APOE4 acquires a novel function in the nucleus, where it translocates and directly binds DNA to affect the transcription of genes associated with AD 45,46 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [45] Rohn, T. T. & Moore, Z. D. Nuclear localization of apolipoprotein E4: a new trick for an old protein. Int. J. Neurol. Neurother. 4, 067 (2017). source
The “Other Studies Supporting Nuclear Localization of ApoE” section reports ApoE4 nuclear localization, direct binding to DNA, and activation of genes involved in programmed cell death and inflammation. The Concluding Remarks describe this transcriptional role as a potential novel function beyond cholesterol transport. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [46] Theendakara, V. et al. Direct transcriptional effects of apolipoprotein E. J. Neurosci. 36, 685–700 (2016). source
The Abstract reports that ApoE4 translocates to the nucleus, binds double-stranded DNA, and functions as a transcription factor. The Discussion reports ApoE4-specific promoter-binding sites, including sites associated with genes implicated in AD. The supplied passages do not specify page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Validation data for non-commercial antibodies: anti-Fcrls mab was published by Butovsky et al. 2014 (PMID: 24316888). Validation data for anti-Apoe mab was published by Kim et al. 2012 (PMID: 23129750), anti-Abeta mab was published by Bero et al. 2012 (PMID: 22457485), and anti-Itgb8 mAb was published by Dodagatta-Marri et al., 2021 (PMID: 34233193).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Butovsky et al. 2014 source
The citation to Butovsky et al. applies specifically to the anti-FCRLS monoclonal antibody, not the other antibodies in the sentence. The Methods identify the newly generated antibody as clone 4G11, and the Results report its staining of adult microglia and lack of staining in the tested peripheral myeloid cells. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites Kim et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Bero et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Materials and methods section (Aβ plaque deposition; page unavailable) identifies HJ3.4 as an in-house anti-Aβ monoclonal antibody, and the Results report its use to stain and quantify Aβ plaques. These passages support the antibody’s identification and use, but do not present antibody-specific validation data, such as specificity controls. The other antibodies in the citing sentence are attributed to other works, not to Bero et al. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Validation data for all commercial antibodies are available on the manufacturer's website including previously published papers as below:”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Krasemann et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The STAR*METHODS Key Resources Table lists antibody manufacturers and catalog numbers, but does not say that validation data for all commercial antibodies are available on manufacturers’ websites or in previously published papers. Searches for the quoted statement and for antibody validation and manufacturer websites found no passage addressing that availability claim; the indexed passages provide no page number. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Lin et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Staszewski et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sample sizes were chosen based on prior publications using the APP/PS1 and P301S mouse models, which provided estimations of expected effect sizes and variance.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Radde et al., 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Cerebral amyloidosis results and Fig. 6 report APPPS1-21 outcomes, sample sizes, and measures of variability that could inform estimates for that model. The paper does not study P301S mice or state that its results were used to choose the citing study’s sample sizes. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites Shi et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods > Animals passage says sample sizes were chosen using estimates to provide 80% power to detect differences of 20% or greater. It does not say those estimates came from prior APP/PS1 or P301S publications, or specify estimates of variance. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry showed an enhanced CLEC7A + MGnD response and increased astrocytic activation, as determined by Serpina3n expression around β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques (Fig. 2i-m and Supplementary Table 2).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry showed an enhanced CLEC7A + MGnD response and increased astrocytic activation, as determined by Serpina3n expression around β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques (Fig. 2i-m and Supplementary Table 2).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IPA identified IGF-1 as the most activated upstream regulator, whereas TGFβ1 was the top suppressed upstream regulator in astrocytes in response to APOE4 -cKO MGnD (Fig. 5m).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RNA-seq analysis of cortical microglia revealed an induction of MGnD-related genes ( Apoe , Cd300ld , Cd74 and Axl ), while the expression of homeostatic genes ( Tmem119 , Siglech , Mertk and Havcr2 ) was suppressed (Fig. 8e and Supplementary Table 8).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 7 | Impaired induction of the MGnD signature and astrocyte activation in individuals with AD that carry the APOE4 allele.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we found reduced SMAD3 phosphorylation and increased APOE immunoreactivity in Itgb8 -cKO mice (Fig. 8g-i).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Genetic deletion of Itgb8 specifically in the cortex in Emx1 Cre : Itgb8 fl/fl ( Itgb8 -cKO) mice showed a complete absence of homeostatic TMEM119 + microglia, while LGALS3 and CLEC7A were highly expressed in cortical microglia (Fig. 8a and Extended Data Fig. 8a-c).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified LGALS3 as a critical MGnD molecule that is restored in microglia following the deletion of APOE4 and is associated with increased astrocytic activation and reduced plaque pathology.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, microglial pSMAD3 immunoreactivity as a marker of TGFβ signaling was increased in the brains of females with AD that carry the APOE4 allele, indicative of a homeostatic microglial signature.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mechanistically, the genetic deletion of Itgb8 or Inpp5d was sufficient to restore the MGnD response and astrocyte activation and reduce plaque load in AD mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the brains of individuals with AD that carry the APOE4 allele, we found a sex-dependent impairment of the MGnD signature, with a pronounced reduction in astrocyte activation observed in females.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings indicate that APOE4 predisposes microglia toward a homeostatic signature that interferes with microglial responses to acute neurodegeneration, and targeting microglial APOE4 or PU.1 can restore MGnD induction.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 8 | Blocking ITGB8-TGFβ signaling enhances the MGnD response and reduces AD pathology in APP/PS1 mice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reproducibility in microglial gene expression profiles indicates that regional deletion of Itgb8 suppresses TGFβ signaling, leading to an induction of the MGnD phenotype.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results support the role of INPP5D as a microglial homeostatic checkpoint, and its deletion is beneficial in mitigating AD pathology via the induction of the MGnD response.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tissues that were not adequately perfused were not further analyzed to eliminate autofluorescence associated with blood contamination.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that nuclear localization of APOE4 may directly repress the transcription of MGnD genes, a function absent in APOE3-expressing microglia, which is alleviated following the deletion of APOE4 .”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biological outliers were determined by PCA plotting and heat map visualization and removed for final analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All comparison groups were assessed for normal distribution.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the experimental procedures using animals were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and University of California, San Francisco.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, APOE may have a dual role in controlling MGnD responses based on its subcellular localization, which may be altered in APOE4-expressing microglia, accounting for the different impact on neurodegeneration detected in tau mice following the deletion of microglial APOE3 compared to APOE4 .”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The postmortem interval was limited to 10 h to ensure tissue quality.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Potential technical outliers were removed for further analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Donors gave informed consent to donate their brains to NBB.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was approved by the Ethics Committees of the Brigham Women's Hospital and was compliant with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on ethical principles for medical research involving humans.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All RT-qPCRs were performed in duplicate, and levels of mRNA are presented as relative expression normalized to the expression of Gapdh (mean ± s.e.m.).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although TGFβ signaling was suggested to play both beneficial and detrimental roles in AD 57 , its overproduction in astrocytes promotes cerebrovascular fibrosis and amyloidosis 58 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] Wyss-Coray, T. et al. Amyloidogenic role of cytokine TGF-β1 in transgenic mice and in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 389, 603–606 (1997). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was approved by the Ethics Committees of the Brigham Women's Hospital and was compliant with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on ethical principles for medical research involving humans.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample sizes for experiments were chosen based on prior publications using APP/PS1 and P301S mice and human analysis, which defined the expectations for the effect size and variance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The following two negative controls were routinely used in immunostaining procedures: (1) staining with isotype control antibody followed by the secondary antibody or (2) staining with the secondary antibody alone.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In line with these findings, Liu et al. demonstrated that APOE4 reduces the activated microglia signature in response to AD pathology in human brains and in human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived microglia with the APOE4 allele.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cells with more than 200 sequencing reads and less than 20% mitochondrial transcripts were selected, and genes with more than 2 reads across all samples entered downstream analyses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All data were replicated in at least three biological replicates and independent experiments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Extended Data Fig. 7 | Expression of Itgb8 in the adult mouse brain.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhang et al. 38
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Allen Brain Atlas
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We discarded unmapped and duplicate fragments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data are representative of 2 independent experiments.”
- Also stated in: § Extended Data Fig. 8 | Blocking Itgb8 signaling enhances MGnD response · p. 32 · plain
“Data are representative of 2 independent experiments.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Extended Data Fig. 8 | Blocking Itgb8 signaling enhances MGnD response · p. 32 · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mice were allocated to control or experimental groups randomly.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No samples were excluded from analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All experimental procedures using animals were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and University of California San Francisco.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all the experiments, investigators were blinded to genotype for data collection and analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gating for Ly6c negative and CD11b positive yielded a cell population which was >95% positive for FCRLS, a microglia specific marker which gates were drawn for and positive cells taken for analysis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: FCRLS is a microglia-specific marker.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Raw fastq files were first checked for quality using Multiqc sequence analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The contribution of microglial APOE4 to AD pathogenesis is unknown.
“The contribution of microglial APOE4 to AD pathogenesis is unknown, although APOE has the most enriched gene expression in neurodegenerative microglia (MGnD).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cell-autonomous role of APOE4 expressed by microglia in the regulation of AD pathology has not been addressed.
“Several studies investigated the molecular signature of microglia in mice globally expressing APOE4 (refs. 10,11); however, the cell-autonomous role of APOE4 expressed by microglia in the regulation of AD pathology has not been addressed.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The impact of microglial APOE4 on astrocyte phenotype and function is unknown.
“The impact of microglial APOE4 on astrocyte phenotype and function is unknown.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recombinant LGALS3 injected into hippocampus and cortex mimics endogenous LGALS3 signaling in APP/PS1 mice.
“we treated APP/PS1 mice with two different doses of recombinant LGALS3 protein (rLGALS3) or with PBS by injection into the hippocampus and cortex at the age of 4 months.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gene expression changes measured in whole human brain RNA-seq reflect changes in microglial/astrocyte gene expression rather than only changes in cell composition.
“we used RNA-seq analysis of whole human brains. We found a significant reduction in the expression levels of MGnD genes, including CLEC7A , AXL , LYZ , CD300LG and HLA -DQB2 , and an induction in expression of the upstream regulator of TGFβ signaling ITGB8 in the brains of male individuals with AD heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles (Fig. 7a and Supplementary Tables 6 and 7).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mouse models (APP/PS1, P301S) and APOE4-KI/cKO manipulations recapitulate key aspects of human AD and APOE4 biology.
“These findings in humans are in line with our previous results demonstrating enriched Spi1 expression in APOE4 -KI mice (Fig. 1a,b) and restoration of the MGnD signature following genetic deletion of Spi1 (Fig. 2a,b and Supplementary Table 2).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Publicly available human scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq datasets are representative and comparable for APOE genotype analyses.
“Analysis of publicly available human brain scRNA-seq data 34 showed increased expression of TGFβ-signaling genes and downstream AD risk factor genes, including INPP5D , in females that are heterozygous for the APOE3 and APOE4 alleles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mouse models of AD (APP/PS1, tau, P301S) faithfully represent key aspects of human AD pathology and microglial responses.
“To test whether enhanced microglia activation and phagocytosis can reduce pathological hallmarks of AD in adult APP/PS1 mice, we used a monoclonal neutralizing antibody to ITGB8 (ADWA11) 43 .”
The paper relies on this without support.
The MGnD signature observed in mouse microglia corresponds to the human MGnD signature.
“These findings in mice and in humans suggest that APOE4 predisposes to AD pathology in part via the induction of TGFβ-dependent microglia homeostatic regulators 13 that impair microglia-astrocyte cross-talk in response to neurodegeneration.”
The paper relies on this without support.
FCRLS is a microglia-specific marker.
“FCRLS, a microglia specific marker”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“removing APOE4 specifically from microglia of APOE4/PS19 tauopathy mice rescued a neuroprotective microglial signature157,158.”
From Multifaceted roles of APOE in Alzheimer disease (2024) · cites this paper as [158]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“women have increased susceptibility to E4 related phenotypes compared to men (Rajan et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2023)”
From APOE4 reshapes the lipid droplet proteome and modulates microglial inflammatory responses (2025) · cites this paper as Yin et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous studies investigating the role of microglial E4 in amyloid and tau models have found that microglial E4 suppresses complement and lysosomal pathways, impairs lipid metabolism, and blunts glial responses to plaques, while its deletion restores a neuroprotective phenotype relative to E3”
From Older adult APOE4 mice exhibit modest immunometabolic adaptation following microglial APOE2 replacement (2027) · cites this paper as Yin et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, another recent study that knocked out Inpp5d in myeloid cells at 6 weeks of age found reduced plaque load, accompanied by a reduction in dystrophic neurites and an increase in GFAP+ immunoreactivity [172].”
From Microglial function, INPP5D/SHIP1 signaling, and NLRP3 inflammasome activation: implications for Alzheimer’s disease (2023) · cites this paper as [172]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“APOE is involved in the regulation of DAMs and the microglial response to amyloid [57, 64–66].”
From APOE Christchurch enhances a disease-associated microglial response to plaque but suppresses response to tau pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [65]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent data also suggests a cell autonomous role of microglia-specific APOE4 expression in blocking the DAM response, compared to APOE3 (Yin et al, 2023b; Liu et al, 2023).”
From APOE from astrocytes restores Alzheimer’s Aβ-pathology and DAM-like responses in APOE deficient microglia (2024) · cites this paper as Yin et al, 2023b
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Microglial specific knockout of murine apoE does not alter amyloid-β pathology in contrast to astrocyte specific ApoE knockout [97]; though decreasing microglia ApoE4 modestly decreased Aβ deposition [98].”
From ApoE lipoproteins in the central nervous system under homeostasis and role in Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (2026) · cites this paper as [98]
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Life sciences study design · p. 38
“No samples were excluded from analysis.”
§ Bulk RNA-seq · p. 19
“Biological outliers were determined by PCA plotting and heat map visualization and removed for final analysis.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Life sciences study design · p. 38
“All data were replicated in at least three biological replicates and independent experiments.”
§ MGnD activate astrocytic plaque encapsulation via LGALS3 · p. 7
“The dashed box indicates CLEC7A + MGnD coexpressing LGALS3 ( n = 2 mice per group).”
Citations
Cites
Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2
Love, M. I., Huber, W., & Anders, S. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 · Cited by 95,106
The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools
Li, H., Handsaker, B., Wysoker, A., Fennell, T., Ruan, J., Homer, N., Marth, G., Abecasis, G., Durbin, R., & 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup (2009) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 · Cited by 62,041
Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2
Langmead, B., & Salzberg, S. L. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1923 · Cited by 56,400
Subramanian, A., Tamayo, P., Mootha, V. K., Mukherjee, S., Ebert, B. L., Gillette, M. A., Paulovich, A., Pomeroy, S. L., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0506580102 · Cited by 53,625 · cited 1×
“…genes with corresponding fold changes and adjusted P values were applied to gene set enrichment analysis (https:// www.gsea-msigdb.org/gsea/index.jsp) 77,78 and IPA (https://digitalin sights.qiagen.com/products-overview/discovery-insights-portfolio/ analysis-and-visualization/qiagen-ipa/).”
MethodModel-based Analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS)
Zhang, Y., Liu, T., Meyer, C. A., Eeckhoute, J., Johnson, D. S., Bernstein, B. E., Nusbaum, C., Myers, R. M., Brown, M., Li, W., et al. (2008) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137 · Cited by 18,386
Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data
Hao, Y., Hao, S., Andersen-Nissen, E., Mauck, W. M., Zheng, S., Butler, A., Lee, M. J., Wilk, A. J., Darby, C., Zagar, M., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.10.12.335331 · Cited by 15,508
Mootha, V. K., Lindgren, C. M., Eriksson, K.-F., Subramanian, A., Sihag, S., Lehar, J., Puigserver, P., Carlsson, E., Ridderstråle, M., Laurila, E., et al. (2003) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1180 · Cited by 10,197 · cited 1×
“…genes with corresponding fold changes and adjusted P values were applied to gene set enrichment analysis (https:// www.gsea-msigdb.org/gsea/index.jsp) 77,78 and IPA (https://digitalin sights.qiagen.com/products-overview/discovery-insights-portfolio/ analysis-and-visualization/qiagen-ipa/).”
MethodCorder, E. H., Saunders, A. M., Strittmatter, W. J., Schmechel, D. E., Gaskell, P. C., Small, G. W., Roses, A. D., Haines, J. L., & Pericak-Vance, M. A. (1993) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.8346443 · Cited by 9,429
Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microglia
Liddelow, S. A., Guttenplan, K. A., Clarke, L. E., Bennett, F. C., Bohlen, C. J., Schirmer, L., Bennett, M. L., Münch, A. E., Chung, W.-S., Peterson, T. C., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21029 · Cited by 7,971 · cited 1×
“A TGFβ-enriched milieu in the brains of individuals with AD that carry the APOE4 allele suppressed astrocyte activation, consistent with previous reports showing astrocyte suppression in response to the TGFβ ligand 50 , and deletion of Tgfbr2 (ref.”
ResultA Unique Microglia Type Associated with Restricting Development of Alzheimer’s Disease
Keren-Shaul, H., Spinrad, A., Weiner, A., Matcovitch-Natan, O., Dvir-Szternfeld, R., Ulland, T. K., David, E., Baruch, K., Lara-Astaiso, D., Toth, B., et al. (2017) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.018 · Cited by 5,493 · cited 3×
“6b,c and Supplementary Table 5), which plays a critical role in TGFβ activation and microglia homeostatic maturation 31 ).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alzheimer’s disease: insights into pathology, molecular mechanisms, and therapy
Zheng, Q., & Wang, X. (2024) · Protein & Cell · doi:10.1093/procel/pwae026 · Cited by 471
Updates in Alzheimer's disease: from basic research to diagnosis and therapies
Liu, E., Zhang, Y., & Wang, J. (2024) · Translational Neurodegeneration · doi:10.1186/s40035-024-00432-x · Cited by 230
“Manipu-lating APOE4 expression in the microglial cells significantly changes the quiescent state and the functions of the microglia [73–75].”
BackgroundCell type‐specific roles of APOE4 in Alzheimer disease
Blumenfeld, J., Yip, O., Kim, M. J., & Huang, Y. (2024) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-023-00776-9 · Cited by 202
“The same study has shown that global ApoE -KO conferred no additional protection, suggesting that microglial APOE is particularly crucial in initiating the appearance of MGnD 143 .”
InfluentialMultifaceted roles of APOE in Alzheimer disease
Jackson, R. J., Hyman, B. T., & Serrano-Pozo, A. (2024) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-024-00988-2 · Cited by 193
“By contrast, removing APOE 4 specifically from microglia of APOE 4/PS19 tauopathy mice rescued a neuroprotective microglial signature 157,158 .”
A multi-pronged human microglia response to Alzheimer’s disease Aβ pathology
Mancuso, R., Fattorelli, N., Martinez-Muriana, A., Davis, E., Wolfs, L., Van Den Daele, J., Geric, I., Preman, P., Serneels, L., Poovathingal, S., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.07.499139 · Cited by 169
“This is consistent with recent observations in mouse models, where microglial APOE4 has a negative impact in the acquisition of the MGnD phenotype 40 and interferes with complement and lysosomal pathways 41 .”
Result
Metadata
- Authors
- Yin, Z., Rosenzweig, N., Kleemann, K. L., Zhang, X., Brandão, W., Margeta, M. A., Schroeder, C., Sivanathan, K. N., Silveira, S., Gauthier, C., Mallah, D., Pitts, K. M., Durao, A., Herron, S., Shorey, H., Cheng, Y., Barry, J.-L., Krishnan, R. K., Wakelin, S., Rhee, J., Yung, A., Aronchik, M., Wang, C., Jain, N., Bao, X., Gerrits, E., Brouwer, N., Deik, A., Tenen, D. G., Ikezu, T., Santander, N. G., McKinsey, G. L., Baufeld, C., Sheppard, D., Krasemann, S., Nowarski, R., Eggen, B. J. L., Clish, C., Tanzi, R. E., Madore, C., Arnold, T. D., Holtzman, D. M., & Butovsky, O.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Boston University (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Broad Institute (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Butovsky, Oleg
- ORCID
- Yin, Zhuoran
- Rosenzweig, Neta
- Kleemann, Kilian L.
- Zhang, Xiaoming
- Brandão, Wesley
- Margeta, Milica A.
- Sivanathan, Kisha N.
- Silveira, Sebastian
- Gauthier, Christian
- Pitts, Kristen M.
- Cheng, Yiran
- Yung, Anthony
- Wang, Chao
- Jain, Nimansha
- Bao, Xin
- Gerrits, Emma
- Deik, Amy
- Tenen, Daniel G.
- Ikezu, Tsuneya
- Santander, Nicolas G.
- McKinsey, Gabriel L.
- Sheppard, Dean
- Krasemann, Susanne
- Eggen, Bart J. L.
- Clish, Clary
- Tanzi, Rudolph E.
- Madore, Charlotte
- Arnold, Thomas D.
- Holtzman, David M.
- Butovsky, Oleg
- Venue
- Nature Immunology
- Published
- 2023-09-25
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1839-1853
- ISSN
- 1529-2908 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2916
- PMC
- PMC10863749
- OpenAlex
- W4387012769
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 56 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 10
- FWCI
- 16.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Immunology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
- HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) (submittedVersion)
- Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Aging (R01AG051812, R01AG054672, R01AG075509, R21AG076982, R01AG080992)
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Eye Institute (R01EY027921, K12EY016335, K08 EY030160)
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS088137, R21NS101673, RF1NS090934)
- BrightFocus Foundation (2020A016806)
- Cure Alzheimer’s Fund
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM132668)
- Nancy Davis Foundation for Multiple Sclerosis
- Alzheimer’s Association (AARF-21-846786)
- National Multiple Sclerosis Society (FG-2108-38372)
- U.S. Department of Defense (MS210257)
- Research to Prevent Blindness
- Glaucoma Research Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
- Keywords
- APOE ε4, Alzheimer's disease, microglia, neurodegeneration, TGF-beta signaling, ITGB8, galectin-3, INPP5D, sex differences, APP/PS1 mice, neuroprotection
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Humans, Mice, Transgenic, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Microglia, Galectin 3, Mice, Apolipoprotein E4
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 2026-10-18, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-18 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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