| Literature DB >> 31277647 |
Marta Sochocka1, Michał Ochnik2, Maciej Sobczyński3, Iwona Siemieniec2, Beata Orzechowska2, Piotr Naporowski4, Jerzy Leszek5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lack of effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) stems mainly from the incomplete understanding of AD causes. Neuroinflammation has emerged as an important component of AD pathology, and a vast number of experimental and clinical data indicated a crucial role for the activation of the innate immune system in disease promotion and symptom progression.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Cytokine; Impaired innate immunity; PBLs; Proline-rich polypeptide complex (PRP); Resistance to viral infection; Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)
Year: 2019 PMID: 31277647 PMCID: PMC6612126 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-019-1520-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroinflammation ISSN: 1742-2094 Impact factor: 8.322
Clinical characteristics of the included patients
| Variable | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max |
| Age | 43 | 65.75 | 68.5 | 74 | 79 |
| BMI | 18.5 | 20.75 | 22.5 | 23 | 25 |
| CRP before | 0.30 | 1.00 | 1.16 | 2.15 | 12.90 |
| CRP after | 0.31 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.98 | 14.92 |
| CRP before-after | −11.90 | −0.18 | 0.01 | 0.48 | 13.69 |
| MMSE | 12 | 14 | 19 | 22 | 23 |
| MoCA 7.2 | 3 | 10.75 | 14 | 16.25 | 23 |
| DSM V classification | |||||
| Mild | Moderate | Serious | |||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| 5 | 25 | 7 | 35 | 8 | 40 |
| Gender |
| % | Age* | BMI* | MMSE* |
| Men | 7 | 35 | 69 | 22 | 18 |
| Women | 13 | 65 | 68 | 23 | 19 |
Q1, Q3—1st and 3rd quartile; *median
Means and standard deviations (SD) of MMSE score in AD patients (n = 20) in relation to the innate immunity measured with PBLs resistance to viral infection (viral titer express in TCID50) at t = 0. ANOVA linear contrast analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between the innate immunity of PBLs (range) and effect of PRP (left table) and MMSE score (right table). In addition, the mean of the innate immunity of PBLs at t = 0 (before PRP treatment) and t = 1 (after PRP treatment) and differences between t = 1 and t = 0 are shown
| PBLs resistance/level of innate immunity | MMSE** | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | SD |
|
| 0–1* | 0.13 | 1.13 | 1.00 | 21.00 | 1.83 | 4 |
| 2–2.5 | 2.25 | 2.00 | − 0.25 | 18.50 | 4.73 | 4 |
| 3–3.5 | 3.07 | 1.50 | − 1.57 | 18.14 | 3.72 | 7 |
| 4–4.5 | 4.10 | 2.10 | − 2.00 | 14.40 | 2.79 | 5 |
H0: mean difference is the same in all groups H1: linear relation between PRP effect and level of innate immunity | H0: mean MMSE is the same in all groups H1: linear relation between mean MMSE and level of innate immunity | |||||
*PBLs with complete resistance to viral infection, high level of innate immunity
**Measured at the time of inclusion into the project
t = 0 before PRP treatment
t = 1 after PRP treatment
Fig. 1Mean levels of PBLs resistance/level of innate immunity before (t = 0) and after PRP treatment (t = 1) grouped by innate immunity/PBLs resistance at t = 0. Additionally means of MMSE score at t = 0 in all groups are presented. Freshly isolated PBLs (1 × 106 /ml) from blood samples of AD patients before and after PRP treatment were infected with VSV (102 TCID50/ml). After 40 min of VSV adsorption at RT cells were washed with culture medium and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Samples of medium above cultured PBLs were next collected and titrated in L929 cells. Red curve represents mean of MMSE score of AD patients. For statistical analysis see description of Table 2
Fig. 2Cytokine profile of PBLs of AD patients before PRP treatment (t = 0). Changes in spontaneous and VSV-induced cytokine production by PBLs depending on the PBLs resistance/level of innate immunity. Freshly isolated PBLs (1 × 106 /ml) from blood samples of AD patients before PRP treatment were divided in two groups. One was cultured uninfected and second was infected with VSV (102 TCID50/ml). After 40 min of VSV adsorption at RT, PBLs were washed with culture medium. All cells were next incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Samples of medium above cultured uninfected (spontaneous cytokine production) and VSV-infected PBLs were collected for cytokine measurement with ELISA. Results have been analyzed with the Student t test for two groups on log-transformed data
Spontaneous and VSV-induced cytokine production by PBLs of AD patients (n = 20) after PRP treatment. General impact and data grouped by MMSE score are present. Means of ratio of the cytokine levels (before/after PRP treatment) are presented for all levels of the MMSE score. Virus effect was considered as the ratio of VSV induced and spontaneous. ANOVA linear contrast was used to test relationship between MMSE and virus effect (F-test). PRP effect was tested with Student t test
| MMSE |
| TNF-α | IFN-γ | IL-1β | IL-10 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Mean | Spontaneous | VSV- induced | Spontaneous | VSV- induced | Spontaneous | VSV- induced | Spontaneous | VSV- induced | |
| 23–22 | 22.2 | 6 | 0.320 | 0.161 | 0.817 | 0.989 | 0.729 | 0.691 | 0.131 | 0.213 |
| 21–19 | 19.6 | 5 | 1.181 | 2.548 | 0.766 | 1.123 | 0.794 | 0.935 | 1.091 | 0.868 |
| 18–14 | 15.2 | 5 | 0.491 | 0.420 | 1.036 | 0.712 | 0.352 | 0.145 | 0.059 | 0.027 |
| 13–12 | 12.5 | 4 | 2.551 | 1.039 | 0.674 | 0.867 | 0.973 | 0.498 | 1.303 | 0.987 |
| Total mean ratio after/before (regardless of MMSE) | 20 | 0.747 | 0.593 | 0.821 | 0.916 | 0.658 | 0.472 | 0.288 | 0.246 | |
| Mean change [%] after PRP treatment | − 25.3% | − 40.7 | − 17.9 | − 8.4 | − 34.2 | − 52.8 | − 71.2 | − 75.4 | ||
| CI95% for the mean change | Lower | − 71.20% | − 81.6 | − 33.8 | − 25.5 | − 54.8 | − 76 | − 89.8 | − 91.4 | |
| Upper | 102.60% | 102.60 | 3.30 | 10.10 | − 5.40 | − 14.50 | − 16.90 | − 22.80 | ||
H0: VSV effect independent of MMSE H1: linear relationship | 0.179 | 0.293 | 2.794 | 0.695 | ||||||
| 0.678 | 0.596 | 0.114 | 0.417 | |||||||
(MMSE effect size) | 0.105 | 0.134 | 0.386 | 0.204 | ||||||
Student H0: total mean ratio ≥ 1 H1: total mean ratio < 1 | − 0.574 | − 0.819 | − 1.687 | − 0.862 | − 2.126 | − 2.322 | − 2.247 | − 2.423 | ||
| 0.2862 | 0.2114 | 0.054 | 0.1996 |
|
|
|
| |||
| Power of the | 0.145 | 0.299 | 0.191 | 0.092 | 0.685 | 0.918 | 0.915 | 0.943 | ||
*reffect size means the correlation coefficient between ratio of VSV- induced and spontaneous and MMSE means both non-contrast between-group variation and the within-group variation are incorporated; ** statistically significant
Fig. 3General average level of spontaneous and VSV-induced cytokine production by PBLs of AD patients after PRP treatment (t = 1). Freshly isolated PBLs (1 × 106/ml) from blood samples of AD patients after PRP treatment were divided into two groups. One was cultured uninfected and second was infected with VSV (102 TCID50/ml). After 40 min of VSV adsorption at RT, PBLs were washed with culture medium. All cells were next incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Samples of medium above cultured uninfected (spontaneous cytokine production) and VSV-infected PBLs were collected for cytokine measurement with ELISA. Results has been analyzed with the Student t test for pairs
Distribution of leukocytes with basic statistics at time T = 0 (PBLs without PRP treatment, control), after 24 h of PBLs culture without PRP treatment (control) and after 24 h of PBLs culture with PRP 120 μg/ml (N = 21). Difference = PRP_24h – Control_24h. For ANOVA, see Additional file 2: Table S1. Additionally, the influence of PRP on PBLs proliferation was reported as the mean of 5 means, where every single mean was computed based on n = 8 independent measurements (N = 40)
| Cell | Statistics | Difference ( | |||
| Leukocytes (PBLs) | Mean | 6.57 | 6.40 | 6.71 | 0.31 |
| SD | 2.68 | 3.42 | 2.82 | 1.03 | |
| Lymphocytes | Mean | 1.61 | 2.53 | 2.23 | − 0.30 |
| SD | 0.65 | 1.13 | 0.79 | 0.58 | |
| % | 24.93 | 44.09 | 36.06 | − 8.03 | |
| Monocytes | Mean | 0.3 | 1.13 | 0.77 | − 0.36 |
| SD | 0.12 | 0.60 | 0.21 | 0.57 | |
| % | 4.8 | 18.47 | 12.31 | − 6.16 | |
| Granulocytes | Mean | 4.66 | 2.70 | 3.71 | 1.01 |
| SD | 2.1 | 2.40 | 2.53 | 0.36 | |
| % | 70.27 | 37.44 | 51.63 | 14.19 | |
| Changes in distribution of PBLs’ subpopulations after PRP treatment* | |||||
| Proliferation | Statistics | PBLs | PBLs+PRP | Difference | |
| Mean | 0.303 | 0.311 | 0.0078 | ||
| SD | 0.0352 | 0.0549 | 0.0299** | ||
| Influence of PRP on PBLs proliferation | |||||
SD standard deviation. *For more details, see Additional file 2: Table S1
**This is standard deviation of five mean differences (not difference between two SD)
Fig. 4Distribution of PBLs’ subpopulations at time T = 0 (PBLs without PRP treatment, control), after 24 h of PBLs culture without PRP treatment (control) and after 24 h of PBLs culture with PRP 120 μg/ml. For ANOVA of changes between PBLs T = 24 h and PBLs+PRP T = 24 h, see Table 4
Fig. 5SDS-PAGE analysis of PRP preparation. PRP were loaded in “PRP” lane of 12.5% polyacrylamide gel. Next, the gel was stained with Coomassie brilliant blue and visualized by using Bio-Rad Gel Doc™ XR+. Line “M” represents protein molecular mass standard