Search

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.

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.

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.

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 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.