Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis reveals varying microglial responses to amyloid-β in rat and mouse models of Alzheimer's disease, highlighting potential differences in treatment approaches.
Background Chronic microglial activation is a key characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (AD). In mouse models of AD, microglial activation is considered associated with microglial cell population expansion. Objective To elucidate species- and gene-dosage-dependent differences and similarities in microglial cell population expansion in response to amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque pathology. Methods The total number of Iba1 + microglia in the neocortex of hemizygous APP swe /PS1 ΔE9 ( APP/PS1) mice and hemi- and homozygous TgF344-AD rats, carrying the same human mutations, was estimated by use of stereological techniques. Furthermore, microglial cluster formation was assessed. Proliferation was assessed in the mouse model. Results A significant two-fold increase in microglia was observed in the neocortex of hemizygous APP/PS1 mice at 18 months and of homozygous TgF344-AD rats at 17 months. In comparison, the number of microglia in hemizygous TgF344-AD rats, remained constant from 4 to 17 months. Microglial clusters formed prior to the increase in microglial numbers in both species. The clusters were typically small, surrounding the smaller-sized Aβ plaques, occasionally also containing recently proliferated microglia. The Aβ plaque loads were comparable in hemizygous TgF344-AD rats and APP/PS1 mice, and two-three-fold higher in homozygous TgF344-AD rats. The microglial population remained constant across ages in wild types in both species. Conclusions Transgenic mouse and rat AD models show significant differences in microglial population expansion, with a more restrained expansion in the rat. However, in both species and regardless of gene-dosage, population expansion is preceded by microglial clustering around Aβ plaques, indicating that cluster-formation is a key event in AD neuropathology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: