OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to quantify glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases, and non-AD controls to determine the regions with the most severe gliosis in AD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a case control design, we used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to quantify GFAP in frozen brain from four areas of neocortex in 10 AD cases, 10 age-matched controls, and 10 younger controls from the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study autopsy archive. RESULTS: Median age at death was 83.5 years for cases and age-matched controls, and 77 years for younger controls. For the AD cases compared with the age-matched controls, levels of GFAP in occipital (P=0.01), parietal (P=0.028), and temporal lobes (P=0.004) (but not frontal) were significantly higher in the cases. The median GFAP excess in AD cases compared with age matched controls was highest in the temporal lobe. CONCLUSIONS: Regional quantification of GFAP reveals that the glial response is most prominent in the temporal lobe in AD.
OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to quantify glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases, and non-AD controls to determine the regions with the most severe gliosis in AD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a case control design, we used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to quantify GFAP in frozen brain from four areas of neocortex in 10 AD cases, 10 age-matched controls, and 10 younger controls from the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study autopsy archive. RESULTS: Median age at death was 83.5 years for cases and age-matched controls, and 77 years for younger controls. For the AD cases compared with the age-matched controls, levels of GFAP in occipital (P=0.01), parietal (P=0.028), and temporal lobes (P=0.004) (but not frontal) were significantly higher in the cases. The median GFAP excess in AD cases compared with age matched controls was highest in the temporal lobe. CONCLUSIONS: Regional quantification of GFAP reveals that the glial response is most prominent in the temporal lobe in AD.
Authors: Michael D Hoos; Brenna M Richardson; Matthew W Foster; Angela Everhart; J Will Thompson; M Arthur Moseley; Carol A Colton Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Jeffrey J Iliff; Minghuan Wang; Yonghong Liao; Benjamin A Plogg; Weiguo Peng; Georg A Gundersen; Helene Benveniste; G Edward Vates; Rashid Deane; Steven A Goldman; Erlend A Nagelhus; Maiken Nedergaard Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Shino D Magaki; Harry V Vinters; Christopher K Williams; Sergey Mareninov; Negar Khanlou; Jonathan Said; Natasha Nemanim; Jessica Gonzalez; Jose G Morales; Elyse J Singer; William H Yong Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 3.148
Authors: Gulnur Sh Burbaeva; Irina S Boksha; Elena B Tereshkina; Olga K Savushkina; Lubov' I Starodubtseva; Marina S Turishcheva; Elizabeta Mukaetova-Ladinska Journal: Neurochem Res Date: 2007-04-18 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Paul E Gottschall; Joanne M Ajmo; Autumn K Eakin; Matthew D Howell; Hina Mehta; Lauren A Bailey Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Viola Neudecker; Jose F Perez-Zoghbi; Lauren D Martin; Gregory A Dissen; Marjorie R Grafe; Ansgar M Brambrink Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 11.719
Authors: Nuole Zhu; Miguel Santos-Santos; Ignacio Illán-Gala; Victor Montal; Teresa Estellés; Isabel Barroeta; Miren Altuna; Javier Arranz; Laia Muñoz; Olivia Belbin; Isabel Sala; Maria Belén Sánchez-Saudinós; Andrea Subirana; Laura Videla; Jordi Pegueroles; Rafael Blesa; Jordi Clarimón; Maria Carmona-Iragui; Juan Fortea; Alberto Lleó; Daniel Alcolea Journal: Transl Neurodegener Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 8.014