Cited by 246Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Inflammation, Aβ deposition, and neurofibrillary tangle formation as correlates of Alzheimer's disease neurodegeneration

Lue, Lih-Fen, Brachova, Libuse, Civin, Harold W., Rogers, Joseph·1996·Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology

Abstract

We evaluated entorhinal cortex and superior frontal gyrus for hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, including inflammation, in three patient sets: AD patients, nondemented elderly patients with few or no neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) and amyloid β peptide (Aβ) deposits, i.e. normal controls (NC), and nondemented elderly patients with profuse entorhinal cortex NFTs and neocortical Aβ deposits, i.e. high pathology controls (HPC). Membrane attack complex (C5b-9) immunoreactivity and immune activation of microglia (MHCII expression) were used as general markers for inflammation. Compared to NC patients, AD patients exhibited significant cortical synapse loss, Aβ deposition, NFT formation, and inflammation. HPC patients also had significantly elevated Aβ deposition and NFT formation, but there was no evidence of synapse loss and little or no evidence of inflammation. Across patients and brain regions the measures of inflammation each accounted for significant percentages of the variance in synaptophysin immunoreactivity and each was more highly correlated with synapse estimates than NFT formation or Aβ deposition.

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 · 10.1097/00005072-199655100-00008

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Increased major histocompatibility complex II staining, counts or expression was noted in the entorhinal cortex, frontal and temporal gyri, hippocampus, and frontal, temporal and occipital cortices.

    “Increased MHCII staining, counts or expression was noted in: the entorhinal cortex,7, 18, 20, 35, 43, 47 frontal and temporal gyri,7, 19, 24, 32, 33, 39, 45, 56 hippocampus20, 25, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 47 and frontal,18, 21, 25, 40, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52 temporal16, 17, 18, 28, 30, 35, 43, 44, 48, 52 and occipital cortices.25, 35, 41, 43, 44”

    From Markers of microglia in post-mortem brain samples from patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Histochemistry and Immunohistochemistry section (p. 2) identifies the examined regions as the entorhinal cortex and superior frontal gyrus. The Inflammation section (p. 3) reports higher LN3-positive microglial staining in Alzheimer’s disease patients, with no significant difference between those two regions. This supports the claim for the examined regions, but not for the temporal gyri, hippocampus, or temporal and occipital cortices. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Major histocompatibility complex II was higher in Alzheimer's disease relative to nonneurological aged controls in 36 of 43 studies.

    “major histocompatibility complex II (36/43 studies)”

    From Markers of microglia in post-mortem brain samples from patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Inflammation results (p. 3) report higher MHC II–marked microglial activity in the Alzheimer's group than in normal aged controls. But this paper compares patient groups, not 43 studies, and does not report a 36/43 finding. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Elevations in neuroinflammatory markers are widely reported in Alzheimer's disease in animal models and human subjects.

    “Elevations in neuroinflammatory markers are widely reported in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), both in animal models1, 2, 3 and human subjects.4, 5, 6, 7”
  • Five of the nine studies comparing microglial markers between AD and high pathology control group reported higher levels of microglia markers in AD, three using HLA-DR, one using CD68, and one using both TREM2 and Iba1.

    “Five of these studies reported higher levels of microglia markers in AD, three using HLA-DR,7, 33, 40 one using CD68,83 and one using both TREM2 and Iba1.61”
  • Counts of the various elements were recorded by an observer blind to disease state.

    “As in our previous research, 5 counts of the various elements at ϫ100 final magnification were recorded by an observer blind to disease state.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [1]1. Brachova L, Lue L-F, Byttner S, Civin WH, Schultz J, Tuohy J, Rogers J. Reduced complement activation in nondemented patients with excessive β-amyloid peptide deposition. (Abstract) Neurosci Abst 1992;19:833
  2. [2]2. Katzman R, Terry R, DeTeresa R, et al. Clinical, pathological, and neurochemical changes in dementia: A subgroup with preserved mental status and numerous neocortical plaques. Ann Neurol 1988;23:138-44
  3. [3]3. Terry RD, Masliah E, Salmon DP, et al. Physical basis of cognitive alterations in Alzheimer's disease: Synapse loss is the major correlate of cognitive impairment. Ann Neurol 1991;30:572–80
  4. [4]4. Crystal H, Dickson D, Fuld P, et al. Clinico-pathologic studies in dementia: Nondemented subjects with pathologically confirmed Alzheimer's disease. Neurol 1998;38:1682–87
  5. [5]5. Dickson DW, Crystal HA, Mattiace LA, et al. Identification of normal and pathological aging in prospectively studied nondemented elderly humans. Neurobiol Aging 1991;13:179–89
  6. [6]6. Arriagada PV, Marzloff K, Hyman BT. Distribution of Alzheimertype pathologic changes in nondemented elderly individuals matches the pattern in Alzheimer's discase. Neurol 1992;42:1681–88
  7. [7]7. Markesbery WR. The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993;117:129-31
  8. [8]8. Hyman BT, Tanzi RE, Marzloff KM, Barbour R, Schenk D. Kunitz -rom nug os r S os nnoo reactivity in Alzheimer's disease. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1992;51:76–83
  9. [9]9. Webster S, O'Barr S, Rogers J. Enhanced aggregation and β structure of amyloid β peptide after co-incubation with C1q. J Neurosci Res 1994;39:448–56
  10. [11]11. Rogers J, Lue L-F, Brachova L, Webster S, Schultz J. Inflammation as a response and a cause of Alzheimer's pathophysiology. Dementia (Japan) 1995;9:133–38
  11. [12]12. Rogers J, Cooper NR, Schultz J, et al. Complement activation by β-amyloid in Alzheimer's disease. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1992;89:10016–20
  12. [13]13. Perlmutter LS, Scott SA, Barron E, Chui HC. MHC Class II-positive microglia in human brain: Association with Alzheimer lesions. J Neurosci Res 1992;33:549–58
  13. [14]14. Neurobiol Aging 1992;15:793–98
  14. [15]15. characterization of HLA-DR immunoreactivity in normal elderly and Alzheimer's disease brain. Exp Neurol 1990;110:93–104
  15. [16]16. Lett 1988;94:17-22
  16. [17]17. Brachova L, Lue L-F, Clark TD, Walker DG, Lorton D, Rogers J matory mediators by cultured microglia from Alzheimer's disease and nondemented elderly patients. (Abstract) Neurosci Abst 1995;21:740
  17. [18]18. Rogers J, Webster S, Lue L-F, et al. Inflammation and Alzheimer disease pathogenesis. Neurobiol Aging (in press)
  18. [20]20. Hyman BT, Van Hoesen GW, Damasio AR, Barnes CL. Alzheimer's Science 1984;225:1168-70
  19. [21]21. thology in Alzheimer's disease. Hippocampus 1991;1:1–8
  20. [23]23. robiol Aging 1993;14:1-16
  21. [24]24. heimer's disease. Brain Res 1992;569:141–45 Reccived June 20, 1996 Accepted August 1, 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jnen/article/55/10/1083/2610495 by guest on 03 September 2023

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lue, L.-F., Brachova, L., Civin, H. W., & Rogers, J.
Affiliations
Banner Sun Health Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Rogers, Joseph
Venue
Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology
Published
1996-10
Volume
55
Issue
10
Pages
1083-1088
ISSN
0022-3069 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296391647
Cited by
246
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, neuroinflammation, amyloid-beta deposition, neurofibrillary tangles, entorhinal cortex, superior frontal gyrus, synaptic loss, synaptophysin, microglial activation, MHC class II, neurodegeneration, non-demented elderly

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