1. Computational and Systems Biology
  2. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

Alzheimer’s Disease: Exploring the origins of nucleation

  1. Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska
  2. Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez  Is a corresponding author
  1. VIB-KU Leuven Center for Brain & Disease Research, Belgium
  2. Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Research Institute for Neuroscience and Disease (LIND), Belgium
Insight
  • Cited 0
  • Views 1,031
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e67269 doi: 10.7554/eLife.67269

Abstract

An approach called deep mutational scanning is improving our understanding of amyloid beta aggregation.

Main text

Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that initially compromises memory and ultimately stops people from being able to perform everyday tasks. The exact causes of the disease are still unknown, but genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors could all play a role, with age being the strongest risk factor for developing the condition. The lack of treatment to halt or slow down the progression Alzheimer’s disease makes it one of the greatest challenges of our times.

Alzheimer’s disease begins decades before the appearance of clinical symptoms. It is thought that changes in the metabolism of a peptide called amyloid beta (Aβ) lead to its misfolding. Although the details are not fully understood, scientists propose that the accumulation of these misfolded molecules in the brain triggers a series of molecular events which, in turn, lead to neuroinflammation, the aggregation of tau proteins in neurons, and eventually, neuronal death (Selkoe and Hardy, 2016).

Preventing the build-up of Aβ has been explored as a potential therapeutic approach. However, designing strategies that specifically target the formation of neurotoxic Aβ, rather than the aggregation of Aβ in general, requires a detailed understanding (in terms of both mechanisms and kinetics) of how the protein misfolds and how this is connected to the disease (Yang et al., 2017; Brinkmalm et al., 2019). Now, in eLife, Benedetta Bolognesi (IBEC in Barcelona), Ben Lehner (the Center for Genomic Regulation, also in Barcelona) and colleagues – including Mireia Seuma as first author, Andre Faure and Marta Badia – report new insights into how mutations affect the initial nucleation of Aβ aggregates (Seuma et al., 2021).

The researchers used an approach called deep mutational scanning (Gray et al., 2019) to generate a library of 468 single and 14,015 double mutant Aβ variants to see how the mutations affect the ability of Aβ to form new aggregates. They focused on the first step of this process, known as nucleation, and then determined the relationship between amino acid sequence and the nucleation rate of Aβ42 (a form of Aβ that contains 42 amino acids) (Figure 1).

Amyloid beta peptide and Alzheimer’s disease.

It is thought that Alzheimer’s disease is caused by amyloid beta (Aβ) (yellow circles; top) first forming dimers and then oligomers in a process called nucleation, with the oligomers then going on to build protofibrils and fibrils. Aggregated Aβ then deposits in amyloid plaques, which are a pathological hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. Familial Alzheimer’s disease is hereditary and is marked by an unusually early onset of symptoms. Several genes have been linked to this form of the disease, including the gene for the amyloid precursor protein (APP). Certain amino acid residues in Aβ are called 'gatekeepers’ of nucleation (magenta stars; bottom) because they prevent nucleation. The mutations indicated (blue arrows), affecting amino acid residues highlighted in blue, cause familial Alzheimer’s disease or protect (A2T) against it. Pathogenic mutations in APP are shown in text (the numbering corresponds to the positions with Aβ). The sequence of amino acids shown here is from the N-terminal of Aβ42. Seuma et al. found that dominant pathogenic mutations within the Aβ42 peptide (indicated in bold text; bottom) all display increased rate of nucleation.

Seuma et al. found that mutations that reduce nucleation are clustered in the hydrophobic part of Aβ42 (the C-terminal), while those that increase this process are located in the N-terminal part, which is hydrophilic. This suggests that Aβ is organized in a modular manner, with the N- and C-terminal parts having different roles in nucleation and aggregation. Intriguingly, such a modularity is also reflected in the distribution of pathogenic mutations in the Aβ precursor called APP (Figure 1). These mutations have been linked to familial Alzheimer’s disease, a rare genetic form presenting a much earlier onset (people usually develop symptoms in their thirties, forties and fifties).

Seuma et al. further identified five negatively charged residues in Aβ42, which acted as 'gatekeepers’, preventing the peptides from sticking to each other (Rousseau et al., 2006). Mutations at these sites frequently resulted in increased nucleation. This raises several questions: could the gatekeepers of nucleation prevent neurodegeneration; and do mutations that promote nucleation prime the system for the onset of Alzheimer’s disease?

To investigate this further, Seuma et al. studied the nucleation rates for 12 mutations in Aβ42, which have been linked to familial Alzheimer’s disease. The mutations all resulted in increased nucleation rates, although the rates did not correlate with the severity of the disease (as reflected by the age at disease onset). These results suggest that Aβ nucleation plays a key role in the formation of neurotoxic aggregates, but other factors are also involved.

It is worth noting that the reservoir of Aβ in the brain contains a heterogeneous mixture of peptides of varying lengths, generated by the sequential cleavage of APP. Pathogenic mutations in both APP and the enzymes responsible for its cleavage favor the production of longer Aβ peptides (Szaruga et al., 2017). Importantly a large number of mutations linked to familial Alzheimer’s disease do not change the amino acid sequence of Aβ42, but affect the composition of Aβ profiles by shifting them towards longer peptides (Szaruga et al., 2015). Whether these pathogenic changes in peptide length (and hydrophobicity) lead to an increase in nucleation, and how this is related to the clinical phenotypes of Alzheimer’s disease, warrant further investigation.

Disentangling the complex pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease will likely require the interrogation of various pathogenic variants under controlled conditions and the plotting of biochemical and cellular data against clinical severity of the condition. The study by Seuma et al. certainly shows that the nucleation assay is a valuable tool for such investigations.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska

    Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska is in the VIB-KU Leuven Center for Brain & Disease Research and the Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Research Institute for Neuroscience and Disease (LIND), Leuven, Belgium

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5853-3465
  2. Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez

    Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez is in the VIB-KU Leuven Center for Brain & Disease Research and the Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Research Institute for Neuroscience and Disease (LIND), Leuven, Belgium

    For correspondence
    lucia.chavezgutierrez@kuleuven.vib.be
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8239-559X

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: March 10, 2021 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2021, Zoltowska and Chávez-Gutiérrez

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,031
    Page views
  • 101
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Timothy M Errington et al.
    Research Article

    Replicability is an important feature of scientific research, but aspects of contemporary research culture, such as an emphasis on novelty, can make replicability seem less important than it should be. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology was set up to provide evidence about the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology by repeating selected experiments from high-impact papers. A total of 50 experiments from 23 papers were repeated, generating data about the replicability of a total of 158 effects. Most of the original effects were positive effects (136), with the rest being null effects (22). A majority of the original effect sizes were reported as numerical values (117), with the rest being reported as representative images (41). We employed seven methods to assess replicability, and some of these methods were not suitable for all the effects in our sample. One method compared effect sizes: for positive effects, the median effect size in the replications was 85% smaller than the median effect size in the original experiments, and 92% of replication effect sizes were smaller than the original. The other methods were binary – the replication was either a success or a failure – and five of these methods could be used to assess both positive and null effects when effect sizes were reported as numerical values. For positive effects, 40% of replications (39/97) succeeded according to three or more of these five methods, and for null effects 80% of replications (12/15) were successful on this basis; combining positive and null effects, the success rate was 46% (51/112). A successful replication does not definitively confirm an original finding or its theoretical interpretation. Equally, a failure to replicate does not disconfirm a finding, but it does suggest that additional investigation is needed to establish its reliability.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Jeffrey V Wong et al.
    Feature Article

    Making the knowledge contained in scientific papers machine-readable and formally computable would allow researchers to take full advantage of this information by enabling integration with other knowledge sources to support data analysis and interpretation. Here we describe Biofactoid, a web-based platform that allows scientists to specify networks of interactions between genes, their products, and chemical compounds, and then translates this information into a representation suitable for computational analysis, search and discovery. We also report the results of a pilot study to encourage the wide adoption of Biofactoid by the scientific community.