CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 354Autophagy in Disease and TherapyAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCalcium signaling and nucleotide metabolism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Autophagy flux in CA1 neurons of Alzheimer hippocampus: Increased induction overburdens failing lysosomes to propel neuritic dystrophy

Open access
Bordi, Matteo, Berg, Martin J., Mohan, Panaiyur S., Peterhoff, Corrinne M., Alldred, Melissa J., Che, Shaoli, Ginsberg, Stephen D., Nixon, Ralph A.·2016·Autophagy
DOI 10.1080/15548627.2016.1239003PMC PMC5173282
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Defective autophagy contributes to Alzheimer disease (AD) pathogenesis although evidence is conflicting on whether multiple stages are impaired. Here, for the first time, we have comprehensively evaluated the entire autophagic process specifically in CA1 pyramidal neurons of hippocampus from early and late-stage AD subjects and nondemented controls. CA1 neurons aspirated by laser capture microdissection were analyzed using a custom-designed microarray comprising 578 neuropathology- and neuroscience-associated genes. Striking upregulation of autophagy-related genes, exceeding that of other gene ontology groups, reflected increases in autophagosome formation and lysosomal biogenesis beginning at early AD stages. Upregulated autophagosome formation was further indicated by elevated gene and protein expression levels for autophagosome components and increased LC3-positive puncta. Increased lysosomal biogenesis was evidenced by activation of MiTF/TFE family transcriptional regulators, particularly TFE3 (transcription factor binding to IGHM enhancer 3) and by elevated expression of their target genes and encoded proteins. Notably, TFEB (transcription factor EB) activation was associated more strongly with glia than neurons. These findings establish that autophagic sequestration is both competent and upregulated in AD. Autophagosome-lysosome fusion is not evidently altered. Despite this early disease response, however, autophagy flux is progressively impeded due to deficient substrate clearance, as reflected by autolysosomal accumulation of LC3-II and SQSTM1/p62 and expansion of autolysosomal size and total area. We propose that sustained induction of autophagy in the face of progressively declining lysosomal clearance of substrates explains the uncommonly robust autophagic pathology and neuritic dystrophy implicated in AD pathogenesis.

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15548627.2016.1239003

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Changes in expression of autophagy-related genes in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons. (A) Autophagy-related genes showing differential regulation in CA1 neurons via custom-designed microarray analysis of 578 genes. Significantly (p ≤ 0.05) altered in both Br. III/IV and Br. V/VI shown in dark gray; others significantly altered in Br. V/VI only shown in black, no change in gray. (B) Pie chart indicating proportions of significantly upregulated and downregulated autophagy genes on the array platform. (C) Pie chart illustrating a relative paucity of genes upregulated in all 578 transcripts contrasting with the higher proportion that are downregulated. (D) GO analysis of all highly expressed genes in Br. III/IV and Br. V/VI when compared to control group. Autophagy, the most represented term, is highlighted in darker blue. p value cut off 0.05. (E) qPCR validation of selected autophagy/lysosomal genes assayed in the CA1 sector of the hippocampus. Statistical significance is denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA or for 2 column analysis by Student t test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 1. Changes in expression of autophagy-related genes in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons. (A) Autophagy-related genes showing differential regulation in CA1 neurons via custom-designed microarray analysis of 578 genes. Significantly (p ≤ 0.05) altered in both Br. III/IV and Br. V/VI shown in dark gray; others significantly altered in Br. V/VI only shown in black, no change in gray. (B) Pie chart indicating proportions of significantly upregulated and downregulated autophagy genes on the array platform. (C) Pie chart illustrating a relative paucity of genes upregulated in all 578 transcripts contrasting with the higher proportion that are downregulated. (D) GO analysis of all highly expressed genes in Br. III/IV and Br. V/VI when compared to control group. Autophagy, the most represented term, is highlighted in darker blue. p value cut off 0.05. (E) qPCR validation of selected autophagy/lysosomal genes assayed in the CA1 sector of the hippocampus. Statistical significance is denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA or for 2 column analysis by Student t test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Evaluation of autophagy induction in AD. (A) Western blot analysis of indices of autophagic induction and autophagosome formation for ULK1, BECN1, PIK3C3/VPS34, ATG7, LC3, and SQSTM1/p62 and degradative products in AD hippocampus. (B) Histogram illustrating quantification of the findings in (A). (C–D) Western blot analysis of FOXO1 and FOXO3 levels in AD and control hippocampal tissue. Samples analyzed from patients as Control (n = 9), from AD Br. III (n = 10) and from AD Br. V (n = 10). Significance determined by one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01. Western blots cropped as shown for purposes of clarity.
Figure 2. Evaluation of autophagy induction in AD. (A) Western blot analysis of indices of autophagic induction and autophagosome formation for ULK1, BECN1, PIK3C3/VPS34, ATG7, LC3, and SQSTM1/p62 and degradative products in AD hippocampus. (B) Histogram illustrating quantification of the findings in (A). (C–D) Western blot analysis of FOXO1 and FOXO3 levels in AD and control hippocampal tissue. Samples analyzed from patients as Control (n = 9), from AD Br. III (n = 10) and from AD Br. V (n = 10). Significance determined by one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01. Western blots cropped as shown for purposes of clarity.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Analysis of lysosomal constituents in AD hippocampus. (A) Western blot analysis of structural and enzymatic constituents of lysosomes with quantification shown in (B). Samples analyzed from control patients (n = 9), from AD Br. III (n = 10) and from AD Br. V (n = 10). Significance determined by one-way ANOVA, with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test. **p ≤ 0.01. Western blots cropped as shown for purposes of clarity.
Figure 3. Analysis of lysosomal constituents in AD hippocampus. (A) Western blot analysis of structural and enzymatic constituents of lysosomes with quantification shown in (B). Samples analyzed from control patients (n = 9), from AD Br. III (n = 10) and from AD Br. V (n = 10). Significance determined by one-way ANOVA, with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test. **p ≤ 0.01. Western blots cropped as shown for purposes of clarity.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Analysis of TFE3 and TFEB transcription factors in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons and glia. (A) qPCR analysis of CA1 neurons for TFE3 and TFEB. (B) qPCR for both TFEB and TFE3 in hippocampal total RNA. (C) Amplification plots for TFE3 (red) and TFEB (green) showing a 1.2 cycle difference equivalent to a greater than 10-fold higher level of TFE3 mRNA in hippocampal tissue. (D–E) Western blot analysis for TFE3 and TFEB in hippocampal tissue and relative quantification showing higher levels of TFE3. Samples analyzed from control patients (n = 9), from AD Br. III (n = 10) and from AD Br. V (n = 10). (F) Immunocytochemical localization of TFE3 in the hippocampal CA1 region. Cells immunostained for TFE3 and counterstained with Nissl. Black arrowheads indicate translocation of TFE3 in neuronal nuclei; blue arrowheads point to negative TFE3 nuclear staining. Scale bar: 10 μm. (G) Quantification of TFE3 nuclear translocation in glia and neurons. (H) Fluorescent immunolocalization of TFEB (yellow arrowheads for neuronal, blue for glia) with Nissl staining shows neuronal or glial nuclei and with decreasing Nissl staining on nuclear translocation in hippocampal CA1 region. Scale bar: 10 μm. (I) Quantification of TFEB nuclear translocation in glia and neurons. A minimum of 50 fields were quantified per condition. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA, with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test, or for 2 columns analysis by Student t test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001.
Figure 4. Analysis of TFE3 and TFEB transcription factors in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons and glia. (A) qPCR analysis of CA1 neurons for TFE3 and TFEB. (B) qPCR for both TFEB and TFE3 in hippocampal total RNA. (C) Amplification plots for TFE3 (red) and TFEB (green) showing a 1.2 cycle difference equivalent to a greater than 10-fold higher level of TFE3 mRNA in hippocampal tissue. (D–E) Western blot analysis for TFE3 and TFEB in hippocampal tissue and relative quantification showing higher levels of TFE3. Samples analyzed from control patients (n = 9), from AD Br. III (n = 10) and from AD Br. V (n = 10). (F) Immunocytochemical localization of TFE3 in the hippocampal CA1 region. Cells immunostained for TFE3 and counterstained with Nissl. Black arrowheads indicate translocation of TFE3 in neuronal nuclei; blue arrowheads point to negative TFE3 nuclear staining. Scale bar: 10 μm. (G) Quantification of TFE3 nuclear translocation in glia and neurons. (H) Fluorescent immunolocalization of TFEB (yellow arrowheads for neuronal, blue for glia) with Nissl staining shows neuronal or glial nuclei and with decreasing Nissl staining on nuclear translocation in hippocampal CA1 region. Scale bar: 10 μm. (I) Quantification of TFEB nuclear translocation in glia and neurons. A minimum of 50 fields were quantified per condition. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA, with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test, or for 2 columns analysis by Student t test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Double-immunofluorescent labeling of the CA1 region with LC3 and CTSD. (A) Immunofluorescent staining for LC3 (green channel) and CTSD (red) in CA1 hippocampal neurons from Control, Br. III and V. Scale bar: 20 μm. (B) Pearson's correlation coefficient of colocalization of CTSD with LC3 in hippocampal CA1 neurons. A minimum of 100 neurons were quantified per condition. (C–D) Characterization of vesicles in Control, Br. III and V CA1 neurons, identified as autophagosome (AP, LC3-positive, CTSD-negative vesicles), autolysosome (AL, LC3- and CTSD-positive vesicles) and lysosome (Ly, LC3-negative, CTSD-positive vesicles). Depicted is the total number and area covered per cell in (C) and (D) respectively. (E) Size distribution of autolysosomes in Control, Br. III and V CA1 neurons. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA, with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test for grouped analyses, and 2-way ANOVA for size distribution analyses. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 5. Double-immunofluorescent labeling of the CA1 region with LC3 and CTSD. (A) Immunofluorescent staining for LC3 (green channel) and CTSD (red) in CA1 hippocampal neurons from Control, Br. III and V. Scale bar: 20 μm. (B) Pearson's correlation coefficient of colocalization of CTSD with LC3 in hippocampal CA1 neurons. A minimum of 100 neurons were quantified per condition. (C–D) Characterization of vesicles in Control, Br. III and V CA1 neurons, identified as autophagosome (AP, LC3-positive, CTSD-negative vesicles), autolysosome (AL, LC3- and CTSD-positive vesicles) and lysosome (Ly, LC3-negative, CTSD-positive vesicles). Depicted is the total number and area covered per cell in (C) and (D) respectively. (E) Size distribution of autolysosomes in Control, Br. III and V CA1 neurons. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA, with post-hoc Dunnett's Comparison to Control test for grouped analyses, and 2-way ANOVA for size distribution analyses. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6. Neuritic dystrophy adjacent to senile plaques in the CA1 region in AD brains. (A) The image of AD Br. V hippocampal CA1 depicts a population of putative dystrophic neurites (white arrowheads in the merged image) surrounding a weakly CTSD-positive senile plaque (P). (B) Z-stack images of consecutive optical slices through the single profile indicated by the box in (A) confirms the typical appearance of a dystrophic neurite, which is shown to contain mainly autophagic vacuoles including LC3-positive AP (green), LC3- and CTSD-positive AL, (yellow-orange vesicles) and less frequent CTSD-positive-only lysosomes (red). Scale bar: 10 μm.
Figure 6. Neuritic dystrophy adjacent to senile plaques in the CA1 region in AD brains. (A) The image of AD Br. V hippocampal CA1 depicts a population of putative dystrophic neurites (white arrowheads in the merged image) surrounding a weakly CTSD-positive senile plaque (P). (B) Z-stack images of consecutive optical slices through the single profile indicated by the box in (A) confirms the typical appearance of a dystrophic neurite, which is shown to contain mainly autophagic vacuoles including LC3-positive AP (green), LC3- and CTSD-positive AL, (yellow-orange vesicles) and less frequent CTSD-positive-only lysosomes (red). Scale bar: 10 μm.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 7. Expression of cell-type markers in AD hippocampus shows alterations in neuronal and glial content. (A) Representative western blots illustrating neuronal ΤUBB3 and glial GFAP markers in AD and control hippocampus. (B) Relative quantification of markers in hippocampus indicates downregulation of neuronal-specific TUBB3 and upregulation of GFAP, consistent with neuronal cell loss and concomitant astrogliosis. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA, Dunnett's test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01. Western blots cropped as shown for purposes of clarity.
Figure 7. Expression of cell-type markers in AD hippocampus shows alterations in neuronal and glial content. (A) Representative western blots illustrating neuronal ΤUBB3 and glial GFAP markers in AD and control hippocampus. (B) Relative quantification of markers in hippocampus indicates downregulation of neuronal-specific TUBB3 and upregulation of GFAP, consistent with neuronal cell loss and concomitant astrogliosis. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks with p-values shown determined by one-way ANOVA, Dunnett's test. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01. Western blots cropped as shown for purposes of clarity.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 101 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Kawai M, 1992, Am J Pathol, 140, 947
  2. Pickford F, 2008, J Clin Invest, 118, 2190
  3. Kim S, 2015, Mol Psychiatry
  4. Schmidt SD, 2005, Methods Mol Biol, 299, 267

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bordi, M., Berg, M. J., Mohan, P. S., Peterhoff, C. M., Alldred, M. J., Che, S., Ginsberg, S. D., & Nixon, R. A.
Affiliations
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Nixon, Ralph A.
ORCID
Venue
Autophagy
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-11-04
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
2467-2483
ISSN
  • 1554-8627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-8635
DOI
10.1080/15548627.2016.1239003
PMC
PMC5173282
OpenAlex
W2547593615
Cited by
353
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 22
FWCI
26.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Autophagy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Emory University
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG014449, R01AG043375, P50AG025688, P01AG017617)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P30NS055077)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Autophagy in Disease and Therapy
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Physiology › Calcium signaling and nucleotide metabolism
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, autophagic flux, CA1 pyramidal neurons, hippocampus, autophagosome formation, lysosomal biogenesis, TFE3, TFEB, p62, LC3-II, neuritic dystrophy, autophagosome-lysosome fusion
MeSH terms
Autophagosomes, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Autophagy, Cathepsin D, Demography, Female, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Lysosomes, Male, Microtubule-Associated Proteins, Middle Aged, Neurites, Basic Helix-Loop-Helix Leucine Zipper Transcription Factors, CA1 Region, Hippocampal

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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