ReviewBMB reports2026
Alzheimer's disease through the lens of mesenchymal drift: the collapse of cellular identity.
Review in BMB reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cellular identity is maintained by precise epigenetic regulation, but chronic stress and aging can disrupt this control, leading to mesenchymal drift (MD). Unlike the coordinated process of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), MD is a stochastic, lineage-independent phenomenon marked by increased epigenetic noise and the widespread activation of profibrotic gene programs. As originally defined, MD requires two components to co-occur: a compromised original cellular identity together with the acquisition or intensification of mesenchymal traits. Applying the MD framework to Alzheimer's disease (AD) provides a new perspective on its pathogenesis. In AD, brain cells do not merely survive or die due to protein toxicity; instead, they lose their specialized identities in an uncoordinated fashion. This transcriptomic drift has been reported across major cell types in the central nervous system: neural progenitor cells differentiate prematurely, mature neurons undergo transcriptomic dedifferentiation, endothelial cells develop features of vascular fibrosis, and glial cells lose their homeostatic functions. Direct enrichment of the MD signature in the AD brain, however, has so far been demonstrated only in astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and pericytes, and, in our own reanalysis, in human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived neural progenitor cells carrying an APP mutation; we distinguish this evidence from observations documenting identity loss or a reactive state alone. We further caution that the novel cell populations identified in recent single-cell transcriptomic studies should not be assumed to represent genuinely new cell types: such clusters may equally reflect a blurring of existing cell lineages, or technical artifacts that produce the same appearance. A drifting transcriptomic profile also does not always signify a corresponding physiological change. These possibilities warrant careful attention, and we therefore emphasize the critical need to integrate transcriptomic data with in vivo functional and morphological validation. This integration is essential to determine whether these identity shifts contribute to AD progression or merely reflect underlying epigenetic instability. [BMB Reports 2026; 59(9): 407-417].
Indexed as
Identifiers
42680479PMC13621191What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.