Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28516241›Full record

ReviewJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2018

Innate immunity in Alzheimer's disease: the relevance of animal models?

Diana K Franco Bocanegra, James A R Nicoll, Delphine Boche

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Diversity of transcriptomic microglial phenotypes in aging and Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Diana K Franco BocanegraClinical Neurosciences, Clinical and Experimental Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Mailpoint 806, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
James A R NicollClinical Neurosciences, Clinical and Experimental Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Mailpoint 806, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Delphine BocheClinical Neurosciences, Clinical and Experimental Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Mailpoint 806, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. d.boche@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5884-130X
Southampton General Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0501033Medical Research Council G0900582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mouse is one of the organisms most widely used as an animal model in biomedical research, due to the particular ease with which it can be handled and reproduced in laboratory. As a member of the mammalian class, mice share with humans many features regarding metabolic pathways, cell morphology and anatomy. However, important biological differences between mice and humans exist and must be taken into consideration when interpreting research results, to properly translate evidence from experimental studies into information that can be useful for human disease prevention and/or treatment. With respect to Alzheimer's disease (AD), much of the experimental information currently known about this disease has been gathered from studies using mainly mice as models. Therefore, it is notably important to fully characterise the differences between mice and humans regarding important aspects of the disease. It is now widely known that inflammation plays an important role in the development of AD, a role that is not only a response to the surrounding pathological environment, but rather seems to be strongly implicated in the aetiology of the disease as indicated by the genetic studies. This review highlights relevant differences in inflammation and in microglia, the innate immune cell of the brain, between mice and humans regarding genetics and morphology in normal ageing, and the relationship of microglia with AD-like pathology, the inflammatory profile, and cognition. We conclude that some noteworthy differences exist between mice and humans regarding microglial characteristics, in distribution, gene expression, and states of activation. This may have repercussions in the way that transgenic mice respond to, and influence, the AD-like pathology. However, despite these differences, human and mouse microglia also show similarities in morphology and behaviour, such that the mouse is a suitable model for studying the role of microglia, as long as these differences are taken into consideration when delineating new strategies to approach the study of neurodegenerative diseases.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAlzheimer DiseaseAnimalsHumansImmunity, InnateInflammationMiceAlzheimer’s diseaseAnimal modelHuman brainMicroglia

Identifiers

PMID28516241
PMCPMC5911273
OpenAlexW2614951468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.