4.5 Article

Lysosomal Dysregulation in the Murine AppNL-G-F/NL-G-F Model of Alzheimer's Disease

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 429, 期 -, 页码 143-155

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.12.042

关键词

lysosome; dementia; knock-in; lysosome-associated membrane protein 1; cathepsin; beta-hexosaminidase

资金

  1. Australian Rotary Health/Rotary Club of Adelaide Funding Partner Scholarship
  2. Australian Rotary Health/Rotary Club of Adelaide Research Training Program Scholarship
  3. Hopwood Centre for Neurobiology, Lifelong Health Theme, SAHMRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lysosomal network dysfunction is a prominent feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although transgenic mouse models of AD are known to model some aspects of lysosomal network dysfunction, the lysosomal network has not yet been examined in the knock-in App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) mouse. We aimed to determine whether App(NLG-F/NL-G-F) mice exhibit disruptions to the lysosomal network in the brain. Lysosome-associated membrane protein 1 (LAMP1) and cathepsins B, L and D accumulated at amyloid beta plaques in the AppN(L-G-F/NL-G-)F mice, as occurs in human Alzheimer's patients. The accumulation of these lysosomal proteins occurred early in the development of neuropathology, presenting at the earliest and smallest amyloid beta plaques observed. App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) mice also exhibited elevated activity of beta-hexosaminidase and cathepsins D/E and elevated levels of selected lysosomal network proteins, namely LAMP1, cathepsin D and microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3-II) in the cerebral cortex, as determined by western blot. Elevation of cathepsin D did not change the extent of colocalisation between cathepsin D and LAMP1 in the App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) mice. These findings demonstrate that perturbations of the lysosomal network occur in the App(NL-G-F/NL-G-F) mouse model, further validating its use an animal model of pre-symptomatic AD. (C) 2020 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据