Shows D-methionine improves spatial memory and reduces amyloid pathology in male and female mice, indicating potential therapeutic benefits.
BackgroundOxidative stress and maladaptive neuroimmune activation contribute to cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and represent therapeutic targets beyond amyloid-centered approaches.ObjectiveTo determine whether oral D-methionine (D-Met), a redox-active amino acid, reduces amyloid pathology and lipid peroxidation and confers disease-modifying benefits in AD models.MethodsMale and female APP/PS1 and APPNL-F mice with advanced AD pathology received oral D-Met or vehicle. Behavioral assessments included locomotor activity and hippocampal-dependent spatial learning and memory. Amyloid burden, lipid peroxidation, peripheral metabolic, and inflammatory markers, and hippocampal microglial phenotypes were evaluated.ResultsD-Met did not alter locomotor or exploratory behavior but improved spatial memory recall in both sexes of APP/PS1 mice and in female APPNL-F mice. APPNL-F males exhibited improved Morris water maze learning. Amyloid pathology was region-specifically reduced, including decreased hippocampal plaque size in male APPNL-F mice, reduced cortical plaque size in female APP/PS1 mice, and lower soluble amyloid-β (Aβ)₄₂ in male APP/PS1 mice. Lipid peroxidation was reduced only in female APPNL-F mice. D-Met induced pronounced sex-dependent peripheral effects, increasing adiposity and pro-inflammatory adipose signaling in males, while reducing perigonadal white adipose tissue IL-6 expression in female APPNL-F mice. In the hippocampus, D-Met decreased microglial activation, with female APPNL-F mice showing reduced Iba1 and disease-associated microglial markers and increased Axl expression.ConclusionsShort-term D-Met acts as a metabolic and redox modulator with amyloid-lowering effects mediated by improved microglial function. Therapeutic efficacy is strongly sex- and model-dependent, with the greatest benefit observed in female APPNL-F mice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peck et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: