Cited by 477Barrier Structure and Function StudiesAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 43 of the 84 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Endothelial LRP1 transports amyloid-β1–42 across the blood-brain barrier

Open access

Abstract

According to the neurovascular hypothesis, impairment of low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein-1 (LRP1) in brain capillaries of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) contributes to neurotoxic amyloid-β (Aβ) brain accumulation and drives Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. However, due to conflicting reports on the involvement of LRP1 in Aβ transport and the expression of LRP1 in brain endothelium, the role of LRP1 at the BBB is uncertain. As global Lrp1 deletion in mice is lethal, appropriate models to study the function of LRP1 are lacking. Moreover, the relevance of systemic Aβ clearance to AD pathology remains unclear, as no BBB-specific knockout models have been available. Here, we developed transgenic mouse strains that allow for tamoxifen-inducible deletion of Lrp1 specifically within brain endothelial cells (Slco1c1-CreER(T2) Lrp1(fl/fl) mice) and used these mice to accurately evaluate LRP1-mediated Aβ BBB clearance in vivo. Selective deletion of Lrp1 in the brain endothelium of C57BL/6 mice strongly reduced brain efflux of injected [125I] Aβ(1-42). Additionally, in the 5xFAD mouse model of AD, brain endothelial-specific Lrp1 deletion reduced plasma Aβ levels and elevated soluble brain Aβ, leading to aggravated spatial learning and memory deficits, thus emphasizing the importance of systemic Aβ elimination via the BBB. Together, our results suggest that receptor-mediated Aβ BBB clearance may be a potential target for treatment and prevention of Aβ brain accumulation in AD.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using brain endothelial–specific inducible Lrp1 knockout mice, the authors show that endothelial LRP1 mediates a substantial fraction of Aβ1–42 efflux across the blood-brain barrier and regulates soluble brain Aβ. In 5xFAD mice, loss of endothelial Lrp1 reduced plasma Aβ, elevated soluble brain Aβ, and worsened spatial learning and memory.

Key findings

  • In vitro, Lrp1-deficient brain endothelial cells transcytosed approximately 50% less [125I]Aβ1–42 than controls; the LRP1-mediated contribution increased from 49.2% at 0.1 nM Aβ to 65.4% at 5 nM Aβ.
  • In vivo, brain endothelial Lrp1 deletion reduced rapid BBB transport of 5.14 nM [125I]Aβ1–42 by about 48%; LRP1 mediated 47.5% of Aβ1–42 BBB clearance and approximately 27% of total Aβ1–42 clearance, and knockout mice needed about 4 times longer to clear about 70% of injected Aβ (60 minutes vs. 15 minutes).
  • In 7-month-old 5xFAD Lrp1 BE−/− mice, plasma Aβ1–40 and Aβ1–42 were reduced and soluble brain Aβ was elevated (immunoprecipitation: about 2.5-fold for Aβ1–42 and 3.7-fold for Aβ1–40; ELISA: about 4.8-fold for Aβx–40 and 3.1-fold for Aβx–42; insoluble Aβx–40 about 2.0-fold), with impaired spatial learning and spatial reference memory.
  • LRP1 preferentially cleared Aβ1–40: in 5xFAD Lrp1 BE fl/fl mice, brain Aβ1–42/Aβ1–40 ratios were elevated and plasma ratios lowered; no significant differences in plaque load or gliosis were found.

Methods

  • Generated tamoxifen-inducible brain endothelial–specific Lrp1 knockout mice (Slco1c1-CreER T2 × Lrp1 fl/fl; Lrp1 BE−/−) and crossed them with 5xFAD mice, using littermate controls.
  • In vitro transcytosis assays used primary mouse brain capillary endothelial monolayers with [125I]Aβ1–42 (0.05–5 nM) and [14C]-inulin; in vivo brain efflux index used caudate putamen injection of 5.14 nM [125I]Aβ1–42 plus [14C]-inulin, with CSF and plasma sampling.
  • Aβ species were measured by immunoprecipitation/Western blot and ELISA; plaque load, astrogliosis, and microgliosis by immunohistochemistry; spatial learning and memory by Morris water maze; statistics used unpaired t tests and ANOVA with Bonferroni comparisons.

Limitations

  • Stated: prior conflicting LRP1 findings may arise from supraphysiological Aβ injections into different brain regions or from in vitro studies using epithelial cells such as MDCK and CHO cells; LRP1 function may depend on cell type and polarization state.
  • Stated: in 7-month-old 5xFAD mice, no significant differences in plaque deposition or gliosis were detected, and the trend toward higher insoluble Aβx–42 did not reach statistical significance.
  • Evident: conclusions rely on mouse models (C57BL/6 and 5xFAD), with small behavioral groups (n = 5–7 per group in the Morris water maze) and a single in vivo Aβ1–42 concentration/time course; no human validation is presented.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1172/jci81108

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

43 of 84 cited sources checked · 22 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 88 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
57 of 57
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No animal model had been available to study the role of LRP1 at the BBB.

    “Until now, no animal model had been available to study the role of LRP1 at the BBB.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Much of the Aβ in the brain is produced by neurons in which there is both high APP and LRP1 expression.

    “However, much of the Aβ in the brain is produced by neurons in which there is both high APP and LRP1 expression.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The role of Aβ production in this paradigm is minimal.

    “Therefore, we assume that the role of Aβ production in this paradigm is minimal.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The fraction of Aβ remaining in the brain follows the two-compartment model N_b(Aβ)/N_i(Aβ) = (a1 + a2) × e^{-(k1+k2)t}, where k1 is total efflux and k2 is retention in the brain.

    “According to our model, the fraction of Aβ remaining in the brain can be expressed as follows: N b(Aβ) /N i(Aβ) = (a 1 + a 2 ) × e -(k1+k2) × t , where a 1 = k 2 /(k 1 +k 2 ), a 2 = (1 -(k 2 /(k 1 + k 2 ))), k 1 signifies the total efflux, and k 2 represents the retention in the brain.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

  • Reported soluble Aβ fold changes imply a lower, not higher, Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio

    Major

    After Lrp1 deletion, soluble Aβ1-42 reportedly rises 2.5-fold while Aβ1-40 rises 3.7-fold. Those changes make the Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio approximately 0.68 times its previous value, contrary to the statement that deletion elevated the ratio.

  • Behavioral-test sample size differs for the knockout group

    Minor

    The Morris water maze methods give seven 5xFAD Lrp1 BE -/- mice, but the Figure 10 caption gives five for the same group.

  • Injected inulin concentration differs between the results and methods

    Minor

    Figure 6 states that the brain-efflux experiment used 40 μCi/ml [14C]-inulin, while the method for that injection specifies 1 μCi/ml.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 66 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 477

Metadata

Authors
Storck, S. E., Meister, S., Nahrath, J., Meißner, J. N., Schubert, N., Di Spiezio, A., Baches, S., Vandenbroucke, R. E., Bouter, Y., Prikulis, I., Korth, C., Weggen, S., Heimann, A., Schwaninger, M., Bayer, T. A., & Pietrzik, C. U.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Meister, Sabrina
  • Nahrath, Julius
  • Pietrzik, Claus U.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
2015-11-30
Volume
126
Issue
1
Pages
123-136
ISSN
  • 0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-8238
OpenAlex
W2187829723
Cited by
477
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 20
FWCI
13.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (PI 379/8‐1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Keywords
LRP1, amyloid-beta 42, blood-brain barrier, brain endothelium, Alzheimer's disease, amyloid-beta clearance, 5xFAD mice, spatial learning and memory deficits
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood-Brain Barrier, Brain, Cognition Disorders, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Peptide Fragments, Receptors, LDL, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Protein Transport, Tumor Suppressor Proteins, Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor-Related Protein-1, Endothelial Cells, Mice, Transcytosis

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 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (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