Aggregation and accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) is a defining feature of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. To study microglial responses to Aβ, we applied exogenous Aβ peptide, in either oligomeric or fibrillar conformation, to primary mouse microglial cultures and evaluated system-level transcriptional changes and then compared these with transcriptomic changes in the brains of CRND8 APP mice. We find that primary microglial cultures have rapid and massive transcriptional change in response to Aβ. Transcriptomic responses to oligomeric or fibrillar Aβ in primary microglia, although partially overlapping, are distinct and are not recapitulated in vivo where Aβ progressively accumulates. Furthermore, although classic immune mediators show massive transcriptional changes in the primary microglial cultures, these changes are not observed in the mouse model. Together, these data extend previous studies which demonstrate that microglia responses ex vivo are poor proxies for in vivo responses. Finally, these data demonstrate the potential utility of using microglia as biosensors of different aggregate conformation, as the transcriptional responses to oligomeric and fibrillar Aβ can be distinguished.
Using seeding models to understand strain differences from Alzheimer’s disease and pathological aging brains
AbstractBackgroundPathological aging (PA) patients are individuals that are cognitively normal prior to death but have abundant and widespread amyloid‐β (Aβ) deposits. These individuals typically have few cored amyloid deposits with variable levels of diffuse parenchymal deposits and/or vascular deposits. There is little or no inflammatory reaction, neuritic pathology or neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex. Previously, we have shown that total Aβ levels in PA brain lysates were similar to the levels in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) brain lysates, with overlap in the length of the Aβ peptides that were deposited and no major differences in SDS‐stable Aβ oligomeric assemblies. Despite these similarities, it is unclear whether PA represents a prodromal phase of AD or if the amyloid pathology of PA patients represents a less pathogenic variant. To explore this idea, we examined the seeding capacity of AD and PA brain homogenates to induce Aβ deposition and to secondarily induce tau pathology.MethodWe determined the seeding capacity of two AD, four PA and two control brain homogenates in transgenic mice expressing APPswe/ind with and without Tau‐P301L by intracerebral injection at neonatal day 0. At either 6, 9, 12 or 18 months, we assessed Aβ deposition and neurofibrillary pathology in all 4 genotypes by immunohistochemical and biochemical methods. Furthermore we examined the seeding activity of human AD brain lysates in brain slice cultures from APP/Tau transgenic mice.ResultIn our newborn mouse injections, we observed widespread Aβ seeding as evidenced by accelerated onset of diffuse parenchymal Aβ deposition that was largely proportional to the burden of parenchyma deposits in patient brains. In all cases, high levels of pial deposition were observed and Aβ42 was the predominant peptide deposited. Tau pathology was not induced in any animal, and with the absence of neuritic plaques there was no induction of tau positive neurites.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that the Aβ conformers associated with diffuse Aβ deposits in the brains of cognitively normal individuals possess seeding activities similar to those found in the brains of AD patients. The findings are consistent with the idea that pathological aging is on a continuum with AD.
Aß40 displays amyloidogenic properties in the non-transgenic mouse brain but does not exacerbate Aß42 toxicity in Drosophila.
Abstract Background Self-assembly of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide into aggregates, from small oligomers to amyloid fibrils, is fundamentally linked with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However it is clear that not all forms of Aβ are equally harmful, and that linking a specific aggregate to toxicity also depends on the assays and model systems used [1, 2]. Though a central postulate of the amyloid cascade hypothesis, there remain many gaps in our understanding regarding the links between Aβ deposition and neurodegeneration. Methods In this study, we examined familial mutations of Aβ that increase aggregation and oligomerization, E22G and DE22, and induce cerebral amyloid angiopathy, E22Q and D23N. We also investigated synthetic mutations that stabilize dimerization, S26C, and a phospho-mimetic, S8E, and non-phospho-mimetic, S8A. To that end, we utilized BRI2-Aβ fusion technology and rAAV2/1 based somatic brain transgenesis in mice to selectively express individual mutant Aβ species in vivo. In parallel we generated PhiC31-based transgenic Drosophila melanogaster expressing wild type (WT) and Aβ40 and Aβ42 mutants, fused to the Argos signal peptide to assess the extent of Aβ42-induced toxicity as well as to interrogate the combined effect of different Aβ40 and Aβ42 species.Results When expressed in the mouse brain for 6 months, Aβ42 E22G, Aβ42 E22Q/D23N, and Aβ42WT formed amyloid aggregates consisting of some diffuse material as well as cored plaques, whereas other mutants formed predominantly diffuse amyloid deposits. Moreover, while Aβ40WT showed no distinctive phenotype, Aβ40 E22G and E22Q/D23N formed unique aggregates that accumulated in mouse brains. This is the first evidence that mutant Aβ40 overexpression leads to deposition under certain conditions. Interestingly, we found that mutant Aβ42 E22G, E22Q, and S26C, but not Aβ40, were toxic to the eye of Drosophila. In contrast, flies expressing a copy of Aβ40 (WT or mutants) in addition to Aβ42WT, showed improved phenotypes, suggesting possible protective qualities for Aβ40. Conclusions These studies suggest that while some Aβ40 mutants form unique amyloid aggregates in mouse brains, they do not exacerbate Aβ42 toxicity in Drosophila, which highlights the significance of using different systems for a better understanding of AD pathogenicity and more accurate screening for new potential therapies.
Aß40 mutants protect Drosophila against Aß42 toxicity despite their amyloidogenic properties in the non-transgenic mouse brain
Abstract BackgroundSelf-assembly of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide into aggregates, from small oligomers to amyloid fibrils, is fundamentally linked with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However it is clear that not all forms of Aβ are equally harmful, and that linking a specific aggregate to toxicity also depends on the assays and model systems used [1, 2]. Though a central postulate of the amyloid cascade hypothesis, there remain many gaps in our understanding regarding the links between Aβ deposition and neurodegeneration.MethodsIn this study, we examined familial mutations of Aβ that increase aggregation and oligomerization, E22G and DE22, and induce cerebral amyloid angiopathy, E22Q and D23N. We also investigated synthetic mutations that stabilize dimerization, S26C, and a phospho-mimetic, S8E, and non-phospho-mimetic, S8A. To that end, we utilized BRI2-Aβ fusion technology and rAAV2/1 based somatic brain transgenesis in mice to selectively express individual mutant Aβ species in vivo . In parallel we generated PhiC31-based transgenic Drosophila melanogaster expressing wild type (WT) and Aβ40 and Aβ42 mutants, fused to the Argos signal peptide to assess the extent of Aβ42-induced toxicity as well as to interrogate the combined effect of different Aβ40 and Aβ42 species.ResultsWhen expressed in the mouse brain for 6 months, Aβ42 E22G, Aβ42 E22Q/D23N, and Aβ42WT formed amyloid aggregates consisting of some diffuse material as well as cored plaques, whereas other mutants formed predominantly diffuse amyloid deposits. Moreover, while Aβ40WT showed no distinctive phenotype, Aβ40 E22G and E22Q/D23N formed unique aggregates that accumulated in mouse brains. This is the first evidence that mutant Aβ40 overexpression leads to deposition under certain conditions. Interestingly, we found that mutant Aβ42 E22G, E22Q, and S26C, but not Aβ40, were toxic to the eye of Drosophila . In contrast, flies expressing a copy of Aβ40 (WT or mutants) in addition to Aβ42WT, showed improved phenotypes, suggesting possible protective qualities for Aβ40.ConclusionsThese studies suggest that some Aβ40 mutants form unique amyloid aggregates in mouse brains, despite protecting against Aβ42 toxicity in Drosophila , which highlights the significance of using different systems for a better understanding of AD pathogenicity and more accurate screening for new potential therapies.
Aß 40 Mutants Protect Drosophila Against aß 42 Toxicity Despite Their Amyloidogenic Properties in the Non-transgenic Mouse Brain
Abstract BackgroundSelf-assembly of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide into aggregates, ranging from small oligomers to amyloid fibrils, is fundamentally linked with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However it is clear that not all forms of Aβ are equally harmful, and that linking a specific aggregate to toxicity also depends on the assays and model systems used [1, 2]. Indeed, though a central postulate of the amyloid cascade hypothesis, there remain many gaps in our understanding regarding the links between Aβ deposition and neurodegeneration.MethodsIn this study we utilized BRI2-Aβ fusion technology and rAAV2/1 based somatic brain transgenesis to examine Aβ aggregates that form from selective expression of individual mutant Aβ species in vivo. In parallel we generated PhiC31-based transgenic Drosophila melanogaster expressing WT and mutant Aβ40 and Aβ42, fused to the Argos signal peptide and placed under the GAL4-upstream activation sequence (UAS) expression system in order to assess the extent of Aβ42-induced toxicity as well as to interrogate the combined effect of different forms of Aβ40 and Aβ42 species.ResultsWhen expressed in the mouse brain for 6 months, Aβ42 E22G, Aβ42 E22Q/D23N, and Aβ42 WT formed amyloid aggregates consisting of some diffuse material as well as cored plaques, whereas other mutants formed predominantly diffuse amyloid deposits. Moreover, while Aβ40WT showed no distinctive phenotype, Aβ40 E22G and E22Q/D23N formed unique aggregates that accumulated in mouse brains. This is the first evidence that mutant Aβ40 overexpression leads to deposition under certain conditions. Interestingly, we found that mutant Aβ42 E22G, E22Q, and S26C, but not Aβ40, were toxic to the eye of the flies and exacerbated their behavior. In contrast, flies expressing a copy of Aβ40 (wild type [WT] or mutants) in addition to Aβ42 WT, showed improved phenotypes, suggesting possible protective qualities for Aβ40.ConclusionsThese studies suggest that some Aβ40 mutants form unique amyloid aggregates in mouse brains, despite being protective against Aβ42 toxicity in Drosophila, which highlights the significance of using different systems for a better understanding of AD pathogenicity and more accurate screening for new potential therapies.
TLR5 decoy receptor as a novel anti-amyloid therapeutic for Alzheimer’s disease
There is considerable interest in harnessing innate immunity to treat Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Here, we explore whether a decoy receptor strategy using the ectodomain of select TLRs has therapeutic potential in AD. AAV-mediated expression of human TLR5 ectodomain (sTLR5) alone or fused to human IgG4 Fc (sTLR5Fc) results in robust attenuation of amyloid β (Aβ) accumulation in a mouse model of Alzheimer-type Aβ pathology. sTLR5Fc binds to oligomeric and fibrillar Aβ with high affinity, forms complexes with Aβ, and blocks Aβ toxicity. Oligomeric and fibrillar Aβ modulates flagellin-mediated activation of human TLR5 but does not, by itself, activate TLR5 signaling. Genetic analysis shows that rare protein coding variants in human TLR5 may be associated with a reduced risk of AD. Further, transcriptome analysis shows altered TLR gene expression in human AD. Collectively, our data suggest that TLR5 decoy receptor–based biologics represent a novel and safe Aβ-selective class of biotherapy in AD.
O2‐03‐01: Insight into the mechanism of gamma‐secretase cleavage: Juxtamembrane amino acids are key to the length of secreted amyloid beta peptide
Biophysical Analyses of Synthetic Amyloid-β(1−42) Aggregates before and after Covalent Cross-Linking. Implications for Deducing the Structure of Endogenous Amyloid-β Oligomers