CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 197Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and DiseaseAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The unfolded protein response is activated in disease-affected brain regions in progressive supranuclear palsy and Alzheimer’s disease

Open access
Stutzbach, Lauren D, Xie, Sharon X, Naj, Adam C, Albin, Roger, Gilman, Sid, PSP Genetics Study Group, Lee, Virginia M Y, Trojanowski, John Q, Devlin, Bernie, Schellenberg, Gerard D·2013·Acta Neuropathologica Communications
DOI 10.1186/2051-5960-1-31PMC PMC3893579
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a neurodegenerative disorder pathologically characterized by intracellular tangles of hyperphosphorylated tau protein distributed throughout the neocortex, basal ganglia, and brainstem. A genome-wide association study identified EIF2AK3 as a risk factor for PSP. EIF2AK3 encodes PERK, part of the endoplasmic reticulum’s (ER) unfolded protein response (UPR). PERK is an ER membrane protein that senses unfolded protein accumulation within the ER lumen. Recently, several groups noted UPR activation in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple system atrophy, and in the hippocampus and substantia nigra of PSP subjects. Here, we evaluate UPR PERK activation in the pons, medulla, midbrain, hippocampus, frontal cortex and cerebellum in subjects with PSP, AD, and in normal controls. Results: We found UPR activation primarily in disease-affected brain regions in both disorders. In PSP, the UPR was primarily activated in the pons and medulla and to a much lesser extent in the hippocampus. In AD, the UPR was extensively activated in the hippocampus. We also observed UPR activation in the hippocampus of some elderly normal controls, severity of which positively correlated with both age and tau pathology but not with Aβ plaque burden. Finally, we evaluated EIF2AK3 coding variants that influence PERK activation. We show that a haplotype associated with increased PERK activation is genetically associated with increased PSP risk. Conclusions: The UPR is activated in disease affected regions in PSP and the genetic evidence shows that this activation increases risk for PSP and is not a protective response.

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 · 10.1186/2051-5960-1-31

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 pPERK is activated in PSP, AD, and normal brain. a. Example of a cell with pPERK immunoreactive puncta in the pons of a PSP case. b-d. Representative fields showing pPERK staining of pons, hippocampus, and cerebellum in normal, PSP, and AD cases. Scale bars are 50 μm unless otherwise indicated.
Figure 1 pPERK is activated in PSP, AD, and normal brain. a. Example of a cell with pPERK immunoreactive puncta in the pons of a PSP case. b-d. Representative fields showing pPERK staining of pons, hippocampus, and cerebellum in normal, PSP, and AD cases. Scale bars are 50 μm unless otherwise indicated.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 peIF2α is activated in PSP, AD, and normal brain. a. Example of a cell with peIF2α puncta in the pons of a PSP case. b-d. Representative fields from peIF2α staining of pons, hippocampus, and cerebellum in normal, PSP and AD cases. Scale bars are 50 μm unless otherwise indicated.
Figure 2 peIF2α is activated in PSP, AD, and normal brain. a. Example of a cell with peIF2α puncta in the pons of a PSP case. b-d. Representative fields from peIF2α staining of pons, hippocampus, and cerebellum in normal, PSP and AD cases. Scale bars are 50 μm unless otherwise indicated.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Frequency of pPERK staining scores in PSP, AD, and normal brain. Distribution of pPERK staining scores. +++ = widespread activation, ++ = moderate activation, + = diffuse activation, R = rare activation, - = no activation. Y-axis indicates number of cases with a particular pPERK staining score. All P-values obtained using Fisher exact test. a-c. PSP cases had the strongest pPERK staining in the pons (PSP vs. Normal: p = 3.8E-9) and the medulla (PSP vs. Normal: p = 6.1E-7), as well as moderate staining in the midbrain (PSP vs. Normal: p = 6.0E-6) which was affected in all PSP cases. d-e. AD cases had the strongest pPERK staining in the hippocampus (AD vs. Normal: p = 0.0006) and moderate staining in the frontal cortex (AD vs. Normal: p = 4.1E-5) both of which were affected in AD. f. No cases had significant pPERK staining in the cerebellum.
Figure 3 Frequency of pPERK staining scores in PSP, AD, and normal brain. Distribution of pPERK staining scores. +++ = widespread activation, ++ = moderate activation, + = diffuse activation, R = rare activation, - = no activation. Y-axis indicates number of cases with a particular pPERK staining score. All P-values obtained using Fisher exact test. a-c. PSP cases had the strongest pPERK staining in the pons (PSP vs. Normal: p = 3.8E-9) and the medulla (PSP vs. Normal: p = 6.1E-7), as well as moderate staining in the midbrain (PSP vs. Normal: p = 6.0E-6) which was affected in all PSP cases. d-e. AD cases had the strongest pPERK staining in the hippocampus (AD vs. Normal: p = 0.0006) and moderate staining in the frontal cortex (AD vs. Normal: p = 4.1E-5) both of which were affected in AD. f. No cases had significant pPERK staining in the cerebellum.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Frequency of peIF2α staining scores in PSP, AD, and normal brain. Distribution of peIF2α staining scores. +++ = widespread activation, ++ = moderate activation, + = diffuse activation, R = rare activation, - = no activation. Y-axis indicates number of cases with a particular peIF2α staining score. All P-values obtained using Fisher exact test. a-c. PSP cases had the strongest peIF2α staining in the pons (PSP vs. Normal: p = 4.1E-5) and the medulla (PSP vs. Normal: p = 6.0E-6), as well as moderate staining in the midbrain (PSP vs. Normal: p = 0.00041) which was affected in all PSP cases. d-e. AD cases had the strongest peIF2α staining in the hippocampus (AD vs. Normal: p = 0.0042) and moderate staining in the frontal cortex (AD vs. Normal: p = 4.1E-5) both of which were affected in AD. f. No cases had significant peIF2α staining in the cerebellum.
Figure 4 Frequency of peIF2α staining scores in PSP, AD, and normal brain. Distribution of peIF2α staining scores. +++ = widespread activation, ++ = moderate activation, + = diffuse activation, R = rare activation, - = no activation. Y-axis indicates number of cases with a particular peIF2α staining score. All P-values obtained using Fisher exact test. a-c. PSP cases had the strongest peIF2α staining in the pons (PSP vs. Normal: p = 4.1E-5) and the medulla (PSP vs. Normal: p = 6.0E-6), as well as moderate staining in the midbrain (PSP vs. Normal: p = 0.00041) which was affected in all PSP cases. d-e. AD cases had the strongest peIF2α staining in the hippocampus (AD vs. Normal: p = 0.0042) and moderate staining in the frontal cortex (AD vs. Normal: p = 4.1E-5) both of which were affected in AD. f. No cases had significant peIF2α staining in the cerebellum.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Hyperphosphorylated tau and pPERK partially co-localize in PSP pons and AD hippocampus. a. Example of a neuron co-stained for htau (red) and pPERK (green). Tau staining is widespread and diffuse. pPERK staining is punctate and localized to the soma and proximal neurites. b. pPERK staining occurred mostly in cells with diffuse, non-fibrillar htau staining. Cells with dense, fibrillar htau staining did not stain for activated PERK (*). c. In PSP pons, most pPERK positive cells also stained for htau (72%), whereas fewer than half of htau stained cells (43%) also stained positive for pPERK. d. htau and pPERK staining overlapped very little in AD hippocampus (14% and 20%). Scale bars are 50 μm unless otherwise indicated.
Figure 5 Hyperphosphorylated tau and pPERK partially co-localize in PSP pons and AD hippocampus. a. Example of a neuron co-stained for htau (red) and pPERK (green). Tau staining is widespread and diffuse. pPERK staining is punctate and localized to the soma and proximal neurites. b. pPERK staining occurred mostly in cells with diffuse, non-fibrillar htau staining. Cells with dense, fibrillar htau staining did not stain for activated PERK (*). c. In PSP pons, most pPERK positive cells also stained for htau (72%), whereas fewer than half of htau stained cells (43%) also stained positive for pPERK. d. htau and pPERK staining overlapped very little in AD hippocampus (14% and 20%). Scale bars are 50 μm unless otherwise indicated.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Severity of PERK activation in normal hippocampus correlates with age and tau pathology. a. Plot of pPERK staining score (X-axis) versus subject age at death (Y-axis). Each diamond represents one normal subject. Some individuals both young and old were negative for pPERK staining. Of those that stained positive for pPERK (including those showing rare through +++ levels of immunoreactivity), older individuals tended to have more severe pPERK staining scores. b. Frequency table plotting htau score against pPERK staining score in normal hippocampus. Htau score and pPERK score were positively correlated (Spearman R: .7523; p = 0.0002). The higher the htau score of an individual hippocampus, the higher the pPERK staining score tended to be. Htau scores were obtained from the CNDR Integrated Neurodegenerative Disease Database [33] using antibody PHF-1.
Figure 6 Severity of PERK activation in normal hippocampus correlates with age and tau pathology. a. Plot of pPERK staining score (X-axis) versus subject age at death (Y-axis). Each diamond represents one normal subject. Some individuals both young and old were negative for pPERK staining. Of those that stained positive for pPERK (including those showing rare through +++ levels of immunoreactivity), older individuals tended to have more severe pPERK staining scores. b. Frequency table plotting htau score against pPERK staining score in normal hippocampus. Htau score and pPERK score were positively correlated (Spearman R: .7523; p = 0.0002). The higher the htau score of an individual hippocampus, the higher the pPERK staining score tended to be. Htau scores were obtained from the CNDR Integrated Neurodegenerative Disease Database [33] using antibody PHF-1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Comparison of PERK haplotype with GWAS risk allele. A GWAS for PSP identified a risk locus on chromosome 2 (rs7571971). The common, low risk allele at this locus is cytosine (C) and the PSP risk allele is thymine (T) [10]. Among individuals homozygous for C at this locus, all harbor PERK haplotype A or D in some combination. Individuals heterozygous (C/T) at this locus were heterozygous for haplotypes A, B, and/or D. Individuals homozygous for T at the GWAS risk locus were always homozygous for PERK haplotype B. This demonstrates that one of the two amino acid changes conferred by the B PERK haplotype that are not shared by the D haplotype may be responsible for the PSP risk evident on Chr. 2.
Figure 7 Comparison of PERK haplotype with GWAS risk allele. A GWAS for PSP identified a risk locus on chromosome 2 (rs7571971). The common, low risk allele at this locus is cytosine (C) and the PSP risk allele is thymine (T) [10]. Among individuals homozygous for C at this locus, all harbor PERK haplotype A or D in some combination. Individuals heterozygous (C/T) at this locus were heterozygous for haplotypes A, B, and/or D. Individuals homozygous for T at the GWAS risk locus were always homozygous for PERK haplotype B. This demonstrates that one of the two amino acid changes conferred by the B PERK haplotype that are not shared by the D haplotype may be responsible for the PSP risk evident on Chr. 2.CC BY · 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

1 retracted

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 197

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Stutzbach, L. D., Xie, S. X., Naj, A. C., Albin, R., Gilman, S., PSP Genetics Study Group, Lee, V. M. Y., Trojanowski, J. Q., Devlin, B., & Schellenberg, G. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Schellenberg, Gerard D
ORCID
Venue
Acta Neuropathologica Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-07-06
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
31-31
ISSN
2051-5960 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/2051-5960-1-31
PMC
PMC3893579
OpenAlex
W2106758408
Cited by
197
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Acta Neuropathologica Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (U24 NS072026, 05-901, 211002, P30 AG19610)
  • University of Michigan
  • Arizona Department of Health Services (P30 AG19610, U24 NS072026, 05-901, 211002, Contract 211002)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10033)
  • Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (P30 AG19610, 05–901, Contracts 4001, 0011, 05‐901 and 1001, U24 NS072026, 4001, 0011, 05-901, and 1001, 211002)
  • National Institutes of Health (U24NS07-2026, 05-901, AG 10 124, 1f31ag043254-01, 211002, AG19610, AG017586)
  • National Institute on Aging (211002, P30-AG-19610, F31 AG043254, 1F31AG043254, P50AG005131, AG-19610, P30AG010124, P01AG017586, R37AG011762, AG-10124, R37 AG11762, P30AG019610, 05-901, AG-017586, P50AG005134, P30AG062421)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS072026, 211002, U24NS072026, 05-901, P30 AG19610)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Disease
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
unfolded protein response, PERK, progressive supranuclear palsy, Alzheimer's disease, tau pathology, endoplasmic reticulum stress, passive optical networks, medulla, hippocampus, genetic risk, amyloid plaques
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Female, Haplotypes, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Supranuclear Palsy, Progressive, tau Proteins, eIF-2 Kinase, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Unfolded Protein Response

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