Article

The generation and function of soluble apoE receptors in the CNS

Department of Neuroscience, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Molecular Neurodegeneration (Impact Factor: 5.29). 02/2006; 1:15. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1326-1-15
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT More than a decade has passed since apolipoprotein E4 (APOE-epsilon4) was identified as a primary risk factor for Alzheimer 's disease (AD), yet researchers are even now struggling to understand how the apolipoprotein system integrates into the puzzle of AD etiology. The specific pathological actions of apoE4, methods of modulating apolipoprotein E4-associated risk, and possible roles of apoE in normal synaptic function are still being debated. These critical questions will never be fully answered without a complete understanding of the life cycle of the apolipoprotein receptors that mediate the uptake, signaling, and degradation of apoE. The present review will focus on apoE receptors as modulators of apoE actions and, in particular, explore the functions of soluble apoE receptors, a field almost entirely overlooked until now.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
93 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is unclear how the nutritional supplement chicken extract (CE) enhances cognition. Human apolipoprotein E (ApoE) can regulate cognition and this isoform-dependent effect is associated with N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR). To understand if CE utilizes this pathway, we compared NMDAR signaling in neuronal cells expressing ApoE3 and ApoE4. We observed that CE increased S896 phosphorylation on NR1 in ApoE3 cells and this was linked to higher protein kinase C (PKC) activation. However, ApoE4 cells treated with CE have lowered S897 phosphorylation on NR1 and this was associated with reduced protein kinase A (PKA) phosphorylation. In ApoE3 cells, CE increased calmodulin kinase II (CaMKII) activation and AMPA GluR1 phosphorylation on S831. In contrast, CE reduced CaMKII phosphorylation, and led to higher de-phosphorylation of S831 and S845 on GluR1 in ApoE4 cells. While CE enhanced ERK/CREB phosphorylation in ApoE3 cells, this pathway was down-regulated in both ApoE4 and mock cells after CE treatment. These results show that CE triggers ApoE isoform-specific changes on ERK/CREB signaling.
    Food & Function 09/2014; 5(9):2043-2051. DOI:10.1039/C4FO00428K · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent findings indicate an isoform-specific role for apolipoprotein E (apoE) in the elimination of beta-amyloid (Aβ) from the brain. ApoE is closely associated with various lipoprotein receptors, which contribute to Aβ brain removal via metabolic clearance or transit across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). These receptors are subject to ectodomain shedding at the cell surface, which alters endocytic transport and mitigates Aβ elimination. To further understand the manner in which apoE influences Aβ brain clearance, these studies investigated the effect of apoE on lipoprotein receptor shedding. Consistent with prior reports, we observed an increased shedding of the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) and the LDLR-related protein 1 (LRP1) following Aβ exposure in human brain endothelial cells. When Aβ was co-treated with each apoE isoform, there was a reduction in Aβ-induced shedding with apoE2 and apoE3, while lipoprotein receptor shedding in the presence of apoE4 remained increased. Likewise, intracranial administration of Aβ to apoE-targeted replacement mice (expressing the human apoE isoforms) resulted in an isoform-dependent effect on lipoprotein receptor shedding in the brain (apoE4 > apoE3 > apoE2). Moreover, these results show a strong inverse correlation with our prior work in apoE transgenic mice in which apoE4 animals showed reduced Aβ clearance across the BBB compared to apoE3 animals. Based on these results, apoE4 appears less efficient than other apoE isoforms in regulating lipoprotein receptor shedding, which may explain the differential effects of these isoforms in removing Aβ from the brain.
    NeuroMolecular Medicine 07/2014; DOI:10.1007/s12017-014-8318-6 · 3.89 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
0 Downloads
Available from