Explore the vast range of titles available.

The present Perspective analyzes the remarkable evolution of the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis 2.0 (ACH2.0) theory of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) since its inception a few years ago, as reflected in the diminishing role of amyloid-beta (Aβ) in the disease. In the initial iteration of the ACH2.0, Aβ-protein-precursor (AβPP)-derived intraneuronal Aβ (iAβ), accumulated to neuronal integrated stress response (ISR)-eliciting levels, triggers AD. The neuronal ISR, in turn, activates the AβPP-independent production of its C99 fragment that is processed into iAβ, which drives the disease. The second iteration of the ACH2.0 stemmed from the realization that AD is, in fact, a disease of the sustained neuronal ISR. It introduced two categories of AD—conventional and unconventional—differing mainly in the manner of their causation. The former is caused by the neuronal ISR triggered by AβPP-derived iAβ, whereas in the latter, the neuronal ISR is elicited by stressors distinct from AβPP-derived iAβ and arising from brain trauma, viral and bacterial infections, and various types of inflammation. Moreover, conventional AD always contains an unconventional component, and in both forms, the disease is driven by iAβ generated independently of AβPP. In its third, the current, iteration, the ACH2.0 posits that proteolytic production of Aβ is suppressed in AD-affected neurons and that the disease is driven by C99 generated independently of AβPP. Suppression of Aβ production in AD seems an oxymoron: Aβ is equated with AD, and the later is inconceivable without the former in an ingrained Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH)-based notion. But suppression of Aβ production in AD-affected neurons is where the logic leads, and to follow it we only need to overcome the inertia of the preexisting assumptions. Moreover, not only is the generation of Aβ suppressed, so is the production of all components of the AβPP proteolytic pathway. This assertion is not a quantum leap (unless overcoming the inertia counts as such): the global cellular protein synthesis is severely suppressed under the neuronal ISR conditions, and there is no reason for constituents of the AβPP proteolytic pathway to be exempted, and they, apparently, are not, as indicated by the empirical data. In contrast, tau protein translation persists in AD-affected neurons under ISR conditions because the human tau mRNA contains an internal ribosomal entry site in its 5′UTR. In current mouse models, iAβ derived from AβPP expressed exogenously from human transgenes elicits the neuronal ISR and thus suppresses its own production. Its levels cannot principally reach AD pathology-causing levels regardless of the number of transgenes or the types of FAD mutations that they (or additional transgenes) carry. Since the AβPP-independent C99 production pathway is inoperative in mice, the current transgenic models have no potential for developing the full spectrum of AD pathology. What they display are only effects of the AβPP-derived iAβ-elicited neuronal ISR. The paper describes strategies to construct adequate transgenic AD models. It also details the utilization of human neuronal cells as the only adequate model system currently available for conventional and unconventional AD. The final alteration of the ACH2.0, introduced in the present Perspective, is that AβPP, which supports neuronal functionality and viability, is, after all, potentially produced in AD-affected neurons, albeit not conventionally but in an ISR-driven and -compatible process. Thus, the present narrative begins with the “omnipotent” Aβ capable of both triggering and driving the disease and ends up with this peptide largely dislodged from its pedestal and retaining its central role in triggering the disease in only one, although prevalent (conventional), category of AD (and driving it in none). Among interesting inferences of the present Perspective is the determination that “sporadic AD” is not sporadic at all (“non-familial” would be a much better designation). The term has fatalistic connotations, implying that the disease can strike at random. This is patently not the case: The conventional disease affects a distinct subpopulation, and the basis for unconventional AD is well understood. Another conclusion is that, unless prevented, the occurrence of conventional AD is inevitable given a sufficiently long lifespan. This Perspective also defines therapeutic directions not to be taken as well as auspicious ways forward. The former category includes ACH-based drugs (those interfering with the proteolytic production of Aβ and/or depleting extracellular Aβ). They are legitimate (albeit inefficient) preventive agents for conventional AD. There is, however, a proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of them being effective in symptomatic AD, lecanemab, donanemab, and any other “…mab” or “…stat” notwithstanding. They comprise Aβ-specific antibodies, inhibitors of beta- and gamma-secretase, and modulators of the latter. In the latter category, among ways to go are the following: (1) Depletion of iAβ, which, if sufficiently “deep”, opens up a tantalizing possibility of once-in-a-lifetime preventive transient treatment for conventional AD and aging-associated cognitive decline, AACD. (2) Composite therapy comprising the degradation of C99/iAβ and concurrent inhibition of the neuronal ISR. A single transient treatment could be sufficient to arrest the progression of conventional AD and prevent its recurrence for life. Multiple recurrent treatments would achieve the same outcome in unconventional AD. Alternatively, the sustained reduction/removal of unconventional neuronal ISR-eliciting stressors through the elimination of their source would convert unconventional AD into conventional one, preventable/treatable by a single transient administration of the composite C99/iAβ depletion/ISR suppression therapy. Efficient and suitable ISR inhibitors are available, and it is explicitly clear where to look for C99/iAβ-specific targeted degradation agents—activators of BACE1 and, especially, BACE2. Directly acting C99/iAβ-specific degradation agents such as proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) and molecular-glue degraders (MGDs) are also viable options. (3) A circumscribed shift (either upstream or downstream) of the position of transcription start site (TSS) of the human AβPP gene, or, alternatively, a gene editing-mediated excision or replacement of a small, defined segment of its portion encoding 5′-untranslated region of AβPP mRNA; targeting AβPP RNA with anti-antisense oligonucleotides is another possibility. If properly executed, these RNA-based strategies would not interfere with the protein-coding potential of AβPP mRNA, and each would be capable of both preventing and stopping the AβPP-independent generation of C99 and thus of either preventing AD or arresting the progression of the disease in its conventional and unconventional forms. The paper is interspersed with “validation” sections: every conceptually significant notion is either validated by the existing data or an experimental procedure validating it is proposed.

The present review analyzes the results of recent clinical trials of β secretase inhibition in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (SAD), considers the striking dichotomy between successes in tests of β-site Amyloid Precursor Protein-Cleaving Enzyme (BACE) inhibitors in healthy subjects and familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) models versus persistent failures of clinical trials and interprets it as a confirmation of key predictions for a mechanism of amyloid precursor protein (APP)-independent, β secretase inhibition-resistant production of β amyloid in SAD, previously proposed by us. In light of this concept, FAD and SAD should be regarded as distinctly different diseases as far as β-amyloid generation mechanisms are concerned, and whereas β secretase inhibition would be neither applicable nor effective in the treatment of SAD, the β-site APP-Cleaving Enzyme (BACE) inhibitor(s) deemed failed in SAD trials could be perfectly suitable for the treatment of FAD. Moreover, targeting the aspects of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) other than cleavages of the APP by β and α secretases should have analogous impacts in both FAD and SAD.

With the long-standing amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) largely discredited, there is an acute need for a new all-encompassing interpretation of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Whereas such a recently proposed theory of AD is designated ACH2.0, its commonality with the ACH is limited to the recognition of the centrality of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the disease, necessitated by the observation that all AD-causing mutations affect, in one way or another, Aβ. Yet, even this narrow commonality is superficial since AD-causing Aβ of the ACH differs distinctly from that specified in the ACH2.0: Whereas in the former, the disease is caused by secreted extracellular Aβ, in the latter, it is triggered by Aβ-protein-precursor (AβPP)-derived intraneuronal Aβ (iAβ) and driven by iAβ generated independently of AβPP. The ACH2.0 envisions AD as a two-stage disorder. The first, asymptomatic stage is a decades-long accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ, which occurs via internalization of secreted Aβ and through intracellular retention of a fraction of Aβ produced by AβPP proteolysis. When AβPP-derived iAβ reaches critical levels, it activates a self-perpetuating AβPP-independent production of iAβ that drives the second, devastating AD stage, a cascade that includes tau pathology and culminates in neuronal loss. The present study analyzes the dynamics of iAβ accumulation in health and disease and concludes that it is the prime factor driving both AD and aging-associated cognitive decline (AACD). It discusses mechanisms potentially involved in AβPP-independent generation of iAβ, provides mechanistic interpretations for all principal aspects of AD and AACD including the protective effect of the Icelandic AβPP mutation, the early onset of FAD and the sequential manifestation of AD pathology in defined regions of the affected brain, and explains why current mouse AD models are neither adequate nor suitable. It posits that while drugs affecting the accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ can be effective only protectively for AD, the targeted degradation of iAβ is the best therapeutic strategy for both prevention and effective treatment of AD and AACD. It also proposes potential iAβ-degrading drugs.

The centrality of amyloid-beta (Aβ) is an indisputable tenet of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). It was initially indicated by the detection (1991) of a mutation within Aβ protein precursor (AβPP) segregating with the disease, which served as a basis for the long-standing Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH) theory of AD. In the intervening three decades, this notion was affirmed and substantiated by the discovery of numerous AD-causing and AD-protective mutations with all, without an exception, affecting the structure, production, and intraneuronal degradation of Aβ. The ACH postulated that the disease is caused and driven by extracellular Aβ. When it became clear that this is not the case, and the ACH was largely discredited, a new theory of AD, dubbed ACH2.0 to re-emphasize the centrality of Aβ, was formulated. In the ACH2.0, AD is caused by physiologically accumulated intraneuronal Aβ (iAβ) derived from AβPP. Upon reaching the critical threshold, it triggers activation of the autonomous AβPP-independent iAβ generation pathway; its output is retained intraneuronally and drives the AD pathology. The bridge between iAβ derived from AβPP and that generated independently of AβPP is the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR) elicited by the former. The ISR severely suppresses cellular protein synthesis; concurrently, it activates the production of a small subset of proteins, which apparently includes components necessary for operation of the AβPP-independent iAβ generation pathway that are absent under regular circumstances. The above sequence of events defines “conventional” AD, which is both caused and driven by differentially derived iAβ. Since the ISR can be elicited by a multitude of stressors, the logic of the ACH2.0 mandates that another class of AD, referred to as “unconventional”, has to occur. Unconventional AD is defined as a disease where a stressor distinct from AβPP-derived iAβ elicits the neuronal ISR. Thus, the essence of both, conventional and unconventional, forms of AD is one and the same, namely autonomous, self-sustainable, AβPP-independent production of iAβ. What distinguishes them is the manner of activation of this pathway, i.e., the mode of causation of the disease. In unconventional AD, processes occurring at locations as distant from and seemingly as unrelated to the brain as, say, the knee can potentially trigger the disease. The present study asserts that these processes include traumatic brain injury (TBI), chronic traumatic encephalopathy, viral and bacterial infections, and a wide array of inflammatory conditions. It considers the pathways which are common to all these occurrences and culminate in the elicitation of the neuronal ISR, analyzes the dynamics of conventional versus unconventional AD, shows how the former can morph into the latter, explains how a single TBI can hasten the occurrence of AD and why it takes multiple TBIs to trigger the disease, and proposes the appropriate therapeutic strategies. It posits that yet another class of unconventional AD may occur where the autonomous AβPP-independent iAβ production pathway is initiated by an ISR-unrelated activator, and consolidates the above notions in a theory of AD, designated ACH2.0/E (for expanded ACH2.0), which incorporates the ACH2.0 as its special case and retains the centrality of iAβ produced independently of AβPP as the driving agent of the disease.

For at least two reasons, the current transgenic animal models of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) appear to be patently inadequate. They may be useful in many respects, the AD models; however, they are not. First, they are incapable of developing the full spectrum of the AD pathology. Second, they respond spectacularly well to drugs that are completely ineffective in the treatment of symptomatic AD. These observations indicate that both the transgenic animal models and the drugs faithfully reflect the theory that guided the design and development of both, the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH), and that both are inadequate because their underlying theory is. This conclusion necessitated the formulation of a new, all-encompassing theory of conventional AD—the ACH2.0. The two principal attributes of the ACH2.0 are the following. One, in conventional AD, the agent that causes the disease and drives its pathology is the intraneuronal amyloid-β (iAβ) produced in two distinctly different pathways. Two, following the commencement of AD, the bulk of Aβ is generated independently of Aβ protein precursor (AβPP) and is retained inside the neuron as iAβ. Within the framework of the ACH2.0, AβPP-derived iAβ accumulates physiologically in a lifelong process. It cannot reach levels required to support the progression of AD; it does, however, cause the disease. Indeed, conventional AD occurs if and when the levels of AβPP-derived iAβ cross the critical threshold, elicit the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR), and trigger the activation of the AβPP-independent iAβ generation pathway; the disease commences only when this pathway is operational. The iAβ produced in this pathway reaches levels sufficient to drive the AD pathology; it also propagates its own production and thus sustains the activity of the pathway and perpetuates its operation. The present study analyzes the reason underlying the evident inadequacy of the current transgenic animal models of AD. It concludes that they model, in fact, not Alzheimer’s disease but rather the effects of the neuronal ISR sustained by AβPP-derived iAβ, that this is due to the lack of the operational AβPP-independent iAβ production pathway, and that this mechanism must be incorporated into any successful AD model faithfully emulating the disease. The study dissects the plausible molecular mechanisms of the AβPP-independent iAβ production and the pathways leading to their activation, and introduces the concept of conventional versus unconventional Alzheimer’s disease. It also proposes the path forward, posits the principles of design of productive transgenic animal models of the disease, and describes the molecular details of their construction.

The present study analyzes two potential therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). One is the suppression of the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR). Another is the targeted degradation of intraneuronal amyloid-beta (iAβ) via the activation of BACE1 (Beta-site Aβ-protein-precursor Cleaving Enzyme) and/or BACE2. Both approaches are rational. Both are promising. Both have substantial intrinsic limitations. However, when combined in a carefully orchestrated manner into a composite therapy they display a prototypical synergy and constitute the apparently optimal, potentially most effective therapeutic strategy for AD.

Although the long-standing Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH) has been largely discredited, its main attribute, the centrality of amyloid-beta (Aβ) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), remains the cornerstone of any potential interpretation of the disease: All known AD-causing mutations, without a single exception, affect, in one way or another, Aβ. The ACH2.0, a recently introduced theory of AD, preserves this attribute but otherwise differs fundamentally from the ACH. It posits that AD is a two-stage disorder where both stages are driven by intraneuronal (rather than extracellular) Aβ (iAβ) albeit of two distinctly different origins. The first asymptomatic stage is the decades-long accumulation of Aβ protein precursor (AβPP)-derived iAβ to the critical threshold. This triggers the activation of the self-sustaining AβPP-independent iAβ production pathway and the commencement of the second, symptomatic AD stage. Importantly, Aβ produced independently of AβPP is retained intraneuronally. It drives the AD pathology and perpetuates the operation of the pathway; continuous cycles of the iAβ-stimulated propagation of its own AβPP-independent production constitute an engine that drives AD, the AD Engine. It appears that the dynamics of AβPP-derived iAβ accumulation is the determining factor that either drives Aging-Associated Cognitive Decline (AACD) and triggers AD or confers the resistance to both. Within the ACH2.0 framework, the ACH-based drugs, designed to lower levels of extracellular Aβ, could be applicable in the prevention of AD and treatment of AACD because they reduce the rate of accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ. The present study analyzes their utility and concludes that it is severely limited. Indeed, their short-term employment is ineffective, their long-term engagement is highly problematic, their implementation at the symptomatic stages of AD is futile, and their evaluation in conventional clinical trials for the prevention of AD is impractical at best, impossible at worst, and misleading in between. In contrast, the ACH2.0-guided Next Generation Therapeutic Strategy for the treatment and prevention of both AD and AACD, namely the depletion of iAβ via its transient, short-duration, targeted degradation by the novel ACH2.0-based drugs, has none of the shortcomings of the ACH-based drugs. It is potentially highly effective, easily evaluable in clinical trials, and opens up the possibility of once-in-a-lifetime-only therapeutic intervention for prevention and treatment of both conditions. It also identifies two plausible ACH2.0-based drugs: activators of physiologically occurring intra-iAβ-cleaving capabilities of BACE1 and/or BACE2.

A notion of the continuous production of amyloid-β (Aβ) via the proteolysis of Aβ-protein-precursor (AβPP) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-affected neurons constitutes both a cornerstone and an article of faith in the Alzheimer’s research field. The present Perspective challenges this assumption. It analyses the relevant empirical data and reaches an unexpected conclusion, namely that in AD-afflicted neurons, the production of AβPP-derived Aβ is either discontinued or severely suppressed, a concept that, if proven, would fundamentally change our understanding of the disease. This suppression, effectively self-suppression, occurs in the context of the global inhibition of the cellular cap-dependent protein synthesis as a consequence of the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR) elicited by AβPP-derived intraneuronal Aβ (iAβ; hence self-suppression) upon reaching certain levels. Concurrently with the suppression of the AβPP proteolytic pathway, the neuronal ISR activates in human neurons, but not in mouse neurons, the powerful AD-driving pathway generating the C99 fragment of AβPP independently of AβPP. The present study describes molecular mechanisms potentially involved in these phenomena, propounds novel approaches to generate transgenic animal models of AD, advocates for the utilization of human neuronal cells-based models of the disease, makes verifiable predictions, suggests experiments designed to validate the proposed concept, and considers its potential research and therapeutic implications. Remarkably, it opens up the possibility that the conventional production of AβPP, BACE enzymes, and γ-secretase components is also suppressed under the neuronal ISR conditions in AD-affected neurons, resulting in the dyshomeostasis of AβPP. It follows that whereas conventional AD is triggered by AβPP-derived iAβ accumulated to the ISR-eliciting levels, the disease, in its both conventional and unconventional (triggered by the neuronal ISR-eliciting stressors distinct from iAβ) forms, is driven not (or not only) by iAβ produced in the AβPP-independent pathway, as we proposed previously, but mainly, possibly exclusively, by the C99 fragment generated independently of AβPP and not cleaved at the γ-site due to the neuronal ISR-caused deficiency of γ-secretase (apparently, the AD-driving “substance X” predicted in our previous study), a paradigm consistent with a dictum by George Perry that Aβ is “central but not causative” in AD. The proposed therapeutic strategies would not only deplete the driver of the disease and abrogate the AβPP-independent production of C99 but also reverse the neuronal ISR and ameliorate the AβPP dyshomeostasis, a potentially significant contributor to AD pathology.

Although the long-standing Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH) has been largely discredited, its main attribute, the centrality of amyloid-beta (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains the cornerstone of any potential interpretation of the disease: All known AD-causing mutations, without a single exception, affect, in one way or another, Aβ. The ACH2.0, a recently introduced theory of AD, preserves this attribute but otherwise differs fundamentally from the ACH. It posits that AD is a two-stage disorder where both stages are driven by (rather than extracellular) Aβ ( Aβ) albeit of two distinctly different origins. The first asymptomatic stage is the decades-long accumulation of Aβ protein precursor (AβPP)-derived Aβ to the critical threshold. This triggers the activation of the self-sustaining AβPP- Aβ production pathway and the commencement of the second, symptomatic AD stage. Importantly, Aβ produced independently of AβPP is retained intraneuronally. It drives the AD pathology and perpetuates the operation of the pathway; continuous cycles of the Aβ-stimulated propagation of its own AβPP-independent production constitute an engine that drives AD, the AD Engine. It appears that the dynamics of AβPP-derived Aβ accumulation is the determining factor that either drives Aging-Associated Cognitive Decline (AACD) and triggers AD or confers the resistance to both. Within the ACH2.0 framework, the ACH-based drugs, designed to lower levels of extracellular Aβ, could be applicable in the prevention of AD and treatment of AACD because they reduce the rate of accumulation of AβPP-derived Aβ. The present study analyzes their utility and concludes that it is severely limited. Indeed, their short-term employment is ineffective, their long-term engagement is highly problematic, their implementation at the symptomatic stages of AD is futile, and their evaluation in conventional clinical trials for the prevention of AD is impractical at best, impossible at worst, and misleading in between. In contrast, the ACH2.0-guided Next Generation Therapeutic Strategy for the treatment and prevention of both AD and AACD, namely the depletion of Aβ via its transient, short-duration, targeted degradation by the novel ACH2.0-based drugs, has none of the shortcomings of the ACH-based drugs. It is potentially highly effective, easily evaluable in clinical trials, and opens up the possibility of once-in-a-lifetime-only therapeutic intervention for prevention and treatment of both conditions. It also identifies two plausible ACH2.0-based drugs: activators of physiologically occurring intra- Aβ-cleaving capabilities of BACE1 and/or BACE2.

Hsp72 is the major heat shock-inducible protein capable of protecting cells from a variety of stresses. In non-transformed cells at normal conditions Hsp72 is expressed at very low levels. It is, however, present at elevated levels in the major fraction of tumors and in many transformed cell lines. It is commonly assumed that in tumor cells the expression of Hsp72 at elevated levels is the consequence of oncogenic transformation. In the present study we addressed an alternative possibility that Hsp72 plays an active role in the process of oncogenic transformation. We report here that when Hsp72 was expressed in the Rat-1 fibroblasts either constitutively or from an adenovirus-based construct, cells become oncogenically transformed by the following criteria: loss of contact inhibition and formation of foci characteristic for oncogenically transformed cells; acquisition of the ability to grow in an anchorage-independent manner and to form colonies in soft agar; generation of tumors upon injection into mice. Furthermore, we also report that turning off the Hsp72 expression led to the reversal of the transformed phenotype. We also show that oncogenic potential of Hsp72 is confined in its peptide binding domain since the expression of this domain alone was sufficient for oncogenic transformation of Rat-1 cells.