Get Newsletter
Alzheimer Research Forum - Networking for a Cure Alzheimer Research Forum - Networking for a CureAlzheimer Research Forum - Networking for a Cure
  
What's New HomeContact UsHow to CiteGet NewsletterBecome a MemberLogin          
Papers of the Week
Current Papers
ARF Recommends
Milestone Papers
Search All Papers
Search Comments
News
Research News
Drug News
Conference News
Research
AD Hypotheses
  AlzSWAN
  Current Hypotheses
  Hypothesis Factory
Forums
  Live Discussions
  Virtual Conferences
  Interviews
Enabling Technologies
  Workshops
  Research Tools
Compendia
  AlzGene
  AlzRisk
  Antibodies
  Biomarkers
  Mutations
  Protocols
  Research Models
  Video Gallery
Resources
  Bulletin Boards
  Conference Calendar
  Grants
  Jobs
Early-Onset Familial AD
Overview
Diagnosis/Genetics
Research
News
Profiles
Clinics
Drug Development
Companies
Tutorial
Drugs in Clinical Trials
Disease Management
About Alzheimer's
  FAQs
Diagnosis
  Clinical Guidelines
  Tests
  Brain Banks
Treatment
  Drugs and Therapies
Caregiving
  Patient Care
  Support Directory
  AD Experiences
Community
Member Directory
Researcher Profiles
Institutes and Labs
About the Site
Mission
ARF Team
ARF Awards
Advisory Board
Sponsors
Partnerships
Fan Mail
Support Us
Return to Top
Home: News
News
News Search  
One-Shot Deal? Mice Regain Memory Day After Vaccination, Plaques Stay Put
9 April 2002. The first clinical trial may be dead, but AD vaccination research is alive and kicking. Yesterday, researchers led by Steven Paul at Lilly Research Laboratories in Indianapolis, reported in the online Nature Neuroscience that a single shot of an Aβ-binding antibody reversed memory deficits in transgenic mice even while these mice's brains contained copious amyloid plaques.

At first glance, the study is surprising. For one, it appears paradoxical that memory would improve overnight in a model of a disease thought to be due to a decade-long pathologic process that eventually kills populations of neurons and thus robs the brain of its abilities. For another, the study runs counter to the prevailing notion that amyloid deposits are the chief cause of neural toxicity, instead lending support to a growing view that a changeable, soluble pool of non-fibrillar Aβ may do some damage, as well. Finally, it suggests functional improvement might be gained from limited applications of passive immunization, a type of therapy not often used for chronic diseases.

The scientists, working with colleagues at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and elsewhere, extended their previous studies of the m266 monoclonal antibody in PDAPP transgenic mice, which had shown that repeated immunization over five months could lower brain Aβ levels by acting as a peripheral "sink" (see ARF news item). In today's paper, first author Jean-Cosme Dodart et al. treated 2 year-old PDAPP mice with m266 for six weeks and found that aged old mice performed almost as well in an object recognition memory task as did young wild-type control mice, even though they had as many Aβ deposits in their hippocampus and cerebral cortex as did untreated PDAPP mice, which perform poorly in this test (Dodart et al, 1999).

Then the authors injected a single dose of m266 into middle-aged PDAPP mice and tested them the next day. Again, the treated PDAPP mice performed almost as well as did age-matched wild-type controls. Roughly the same was true with the holeboard task, a learning test. The effect was dose-dependent, as was the concentration of Aβ peptides detected in plasma. The scientists detected complexes of Aβ bound to antibody in all plasma samples but only in cerebrospinal fluid of mice treated with the highest doses of m266.

The Dodart et al. paper appears to contradict previous research on active Aβ immunization studies, which tended to report that behavioral improvement occurred along with a reduced amyloid burden. The study does not settle the question whether these antibodies work from the periphery or by entering the brain.

This study does, however, bolster a line of evidence arguing that soluble Aβ may be as neurotoxic as plaques, though in a different way. For example, one study found that soluble Aβ levels, measured in postmortem brains, could distinguish between people who had plaque pathology but no dementia and those who also had clinical dementia (Lue et al. 1999). Another study found that soluble Aβ levels correlate better with disease severity than do plaque levels (McLean et al, 1999), and a recent paper implicated soluble Aβ, but not plaques, in spatial learning deficits in another AβPP-transgenic mouse strain (Koistinaho et al. 2001.) A paper in the current issue of Nature reports that soluble Aβ oligomers interfere with long-term potentiation in rats (see ARF news item) and another one recently reported similar data in rat hippocampal slices (Wang et al. 2002). Finally, Bill Klein and others at Northwestern University Medical School reported Aβ oligomers, or ADDLs, cause neurological dysfunction in the hippocampus long before neurons degenerate (Lambert et al. 1998)

It is fascinating to wonder how, mechanistically, such marked improvement in memory can occur overnight. Moreover, it remains to be seen if any of this effect-seen in mice whose abnormal production of human AβPP is not generally accompanied by massive neuronal death-can be replicated in human patients, who do lose significant populations of hippocampal and entorhinal cortex neurons before they notice the first symptoms. As famed angiogenesis researcher Judah Folkman likes to quip: "If you are a mouse, we can take good care of you."-Gabrielle Strobel.

Reference:
Dodart JD, Bales K, Gannon KS, Greene S, DeMattos RB, Mathis C, DeLong C, Wu S, Holtzman DM, Paul SM. Immunization reverses memory deficits without reducing brain Aβ burden in Alzheimer's disease model. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 8 April. Abstract

  • Q & A with Steven Paul-Posted 9 April 2002

    Q: Memory improvement after one day at first blush seems paradoxical when one thinks of AD as a slow, degenerative process that eventually kills off populations of neurons. How does it work?
    A: This transgenic mouse model does not develop a lot of neurodegeneration. The difference between the mouse model and human AD is that while the mouse develops abundant neuritic plaques, we do not see frank loss of neurons, certainly not the massive neurodegeneration that occurs in late-stage human AD. The soluble forms of Aβ are toxic to some forms of memory; we only tested two learning/memory tasks. The antibody can somehow acutely block those toxic effects on whatever biological processes underlie those forms of memory.

    Last week, Walsh et al. showed that small oligomers of Aβ were particularly effective in blocking LTP, suggesting again, much like our data, that these small oligomers may themselves disrupt a molecular substrate for memory formation (see related ARF news items). This antibody also prevents the deposition of amyloid plaques (see related ARF news items).

    Q: So there must be a separate mechanism from what is generally thought, namely that Aβ ultimately induces cell death by forming fibrils and aggregating?
    A: It would be different, yes. That highlights the complexity of how this little peptide might contribute to the pathogenesis of AD. I suspect that if this paper were to have any relevance to human AD, it would be very early in the disease-perhaps when people are having mild cognitive impairment-that the peptide is disrupting memory, quite apart from its effect of depositing aggregate-forming fibrils and killing neurons.

    Q: How long does the one-shot improvement last? Did you test again after a week, or a month?
    A: We have not tested that yet. I expect it may last as long as the antibody is interacting with the peptide, and that probably relates to the half-life of the antibody in the plasma or brain, which is a few days.

    Q: Dominic Walsh and Bill Klein have antibodies for non-fibrillar species of Aβ. How about testing if their levels correlate with cognitive function in these PDAPP mice?
    A: We have not done so, that would be a worthwhile experiment.

    Q: What exactly does m266 bind? Monomers, oligomers, protofibrils?
    A: We know it binds to monomeric Aβ but don't know what other forms it may recognize. It could bind to other low-n oligomers, as well. We do not seem to be able to decorate plaques with this antibody in vivo, so it does not bind well to more complex, aggregated forms of Aβ.

    Q: Some of the results of other vaccination studies were contradictory because they varied with the genetic background of the strains used. Is yours a PDAPP-specific effect, and have you tried it on other strains?
    A: We have not tried it on other strains yet. How well this can be extrapolated to other mouse strains is not clear at this point. How it will translate to humans is even less clear.

    Q: With regard to treating humans, eventually, how much of a risk with passive immunization is serum sickness, and does this infrequent vaccination scheme encourage you because it raises the specter that AD could be treated more like an acute, not a chronic, disease.
    A: I do not think serum sickness is not going to be a huge problem at the doses given in this disease. You would not be giving huge doses like we do against virus infections. We have been giving humanized antibodies safely now for a variety of conditions. In light of the Elan data I think the question becomes, can an antibody to the peptide be safe without producing an "inflammatory" response? We do not know the answer to that, but with a well-defined antibody recognizing a well-defined epitope, you improve your chance of avoiding cellular immunity, which is what happens when you actively immunize with peptide.

    Q: A T cell response is said to have occurred in the Elan trial.
    A: Right. Whether that response caused the problems I do not know.

    Q: Finally, papers are always a step behind the real research front. Where is this in terms of future clinical trials?
    A: We are continuing to explore it as a possible avenue. But there are still so many complexities, including making sure we have the right antibody that would be safe and effective in the animal model. All the preclinical toxicology work still needs to be done, so we are a ways off from being able to test this in humans. Whether human trials will occur will depend on the results of a whole series of tests that still need to be done. But I think the general strategy of immunotherapy is still interesting.

    Q: Will this paper give a boost to those who believe soluble Aβ deserves more attention?
    A: Let me emphasize that we are in no way saying that deposited forms of Aβ that are fibrillized into amyloid plaques are harmless. We are quite certain that that will disrupt memory, too. We are just saying that the soluble form can be damaging, as well. We like the fact that this antibody, when administered chronically, also reduces deposited Aβ as well.-Steven Paul, Lilly Research Laboratories, Indianapolis.

  •  
    Comments on News and Primary Papers
      Comment by:  Blas Frangione, Einar Sigurdsson (Disclosure)
    Submitted 12 April 2002  |  Permalink Posted 12 April 2002

    "The findings by Dodart and colleagues are very interesting. However, as Steven Paul points out in the Q and A session on this website, it remains to be seen if a similar effect will be observed in other transgenic AβPP mouse models and eventually in AD patients. Reversal of behavioral deficits was not associated with reduction in amyloid plaque burden or alterations in levels of total brain Aβ, but was significant at doses that allowed detection of Aβ-antibody complexes in the CSF. However, levels of soluble brain Aβ or the presence of antibodies bound to plaques were not measured.

    Increase or Decrease of Soluble Aβ?
    The authors speculate that the behavioral improvements may be caused by efflux of soluble Aβ out of the brain. This may be true, but the reversal of memory deficits may as well be caused by a rapid increase in soluble Aβ within the CNS, derived from plaque Aβ. However, this acute increase may not be sufficient to significantly reduce plaque burden. This alternative explanation should come as no surprise as numerous laboratories have shown low levels...  Read more


      Comment by:  William Klein
    Submitted 14 April 2002  |  Permalink Posted 14 April 2002

    The remarkable finding described by Dodart et al. in Nature Neuroscience adds an important page to the evolving story of Aβ toxicity in Alzheimer's disease. It builds on two related discoveries. First, thanks to the pioneering work of Dale Schenk and colleagues (Schenk et al, 1999), we have known for three years that active and passive vaccination can have a major impact on brain chemistry, a terrifically surprising and important discovery. Schenk's original findings showed that vaccination with fibril-enriched preparations of Aβ could significantly lower amyloid plaques in transgenic mice models for AD. Second, since the work of Lambert et al., 1998, we've also known that small oligomers of Aβ, soluble and globular in structure, have potent CNS effects. The disruptive activity of oligomers (aka "ADDLs") is likely to account for the imperfect...  Read more

      Primary Papers: Immunization reverses memory deficits without reducing brain Abeta burden in Alzheimer's disease model.

    Comment by:  Benjamin Wolozin, ARF Advisor (Disclosure)
    Permalink

    This paper makes important advances in the immunization field on two fronts. First, it follows up on previous papers, such as that out of Dave Morgan's work, suggesting that the vaccine can reduce the cognitive deficit associated with the accumulation of Aβ, without removing the neuritic plaques. The reason is presumably that soluble Aβ oligomers and proto-fibrils are being reduced. Examples of such protofibrils are given in work on ADDLs by the work or Bill Klein and Grant Krafft. The current work confirms the observation that cognitive deficits can be improved without eliminating neuritic plaques, and focuses attention on the toxicity associated with soluble Aβ.

    A second reason that this work might be particularly important is because it furthers prior work by Steve Paul's group showing that administration of peripheral anti-Aβ can reduce plaque load, and now the cognitive deficit associated with plaque load. Given potential difficulties with the active immunization model, this passive immunization model takes on increased importance (although there is a possibility...  Read more

      Submit a Comment on this News Article
    Cast your vote and/or make a comment on this news article. 

    If you already are a member, please login.
    Not sure if you are a member? Search our member database.

    *First Name  
    *Last Name  
    Country or Territory:
    *Login Email Address  
    *Password    Minimum of 8 characters
    *Confirm Password  
    Stay signed in?  

    I recommend the Primary Papers

    Comment:

    (If coauthors exist for this comment, please enter their names and email addresses at the end of the comment.)

    References:


    *Enter the verification code you see in the picture below:


    This helps Alzforum prevent automated registrations.

    Terms and Conditions of Use:Printable Version

    By clicking on the 'I accept' below, you are agreeing to the Terms and Conditions of Use above.
    Print this page
    Email this page
    Alzforum News
    Papers of the Week
    Text size
    Share & Bookmark
    ADNI Related Links
    ADNI Data at LONI
    ADNI Information
    DIAN
    Foundation for the NIH
    AddNeuroMed
    neuGRID
    Desperately

    Antibodies
    Cell Lines
    Collaborators
    Papers
    Research Participants
    Copyright © 1996-2013 Alzheimer Research Forum Terms of Use How to Cite Privacy Policy Disclaimer Disclosure Copyright
    wma logoadadad