Cited by 282Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Deciphering the astrocyte reaction in Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Perez-Nievas, Beatriz G., Serrano-Pozo, Alberto·2018·Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience

Abstract

amyloid plaques in the cortex of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients several decades ago. However, their role in AD pathophysiology has remained elusive ever since, in part owing to the extrapolation of the literature from primary astrocyte cultures and acute brain injury models to a chronic neurodegenerative scenario. Recent accumulating evidence supports the idea that reactive astrocytes in AD acquire neurotoxic properties, likely due to both a gain of toxic function and a loss of their neurotrophic effects. However, the diversity and complexity of this glial cell is only beginning to be unveiled, anticipating that astrocyte reaction might be heterogeneous as well. Herein we review the evidence from mouse models of AD and human neuropathological studies and attempt to decipher the main conundrums that astrocytes pose to our understanding of AD development and progression. We discuss the morphological features that characterize astrocyte reaction in the AD brain, the consequences of astrocyte reaction for both astrocyte biology and AD pathological hallmarks, and the molecular pathways that have been implicated in this reaction.

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 · 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00114

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 231 · Cited by 282

Authors
Perez-Nievas, B. G., & Serrano-Pozo, A.
Venue
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Published
2018-04-25
Volume
10
Pages
114-114
ISSN
1663-4365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801244110
Cited by
282
References
231
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK-RF2014-2)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R25NS065743)
  • Alzheimer’s Association (AACF-17-524184)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, reactive astrocytes, amyloid plaques, neurotoxicity, astrocyte heterogeneity, astrocyte morphology, molecular pathways, mouse models of Alzheimer's disease, neuropathology

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