Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common dementia in the industrialized world, with prevalence rates well over 30% in the over 80-years-old population. The dementia causes enormous costs to the social healthcare systems, as well as personal tragedies for the patients, families and caregivers. AD is strongly associated with Amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein aggregation, which results in extracellular plaques in the brain, and according to the amyloid cascade hypothesis appeared to be a promising target for the development of AD therapeutics. Within the past decade convincing data has arisen positioning the soluble prefibrillar Aβ-aggregates as the prime toxic agents in AD. However, different Aβ aggregate species are described but their remarkable metastability hampers the identification of a target species for immunization. Passive immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Aβ is in late clinical development but recently the two most advanced mAbs, Bapineuzumab and Solanezumab, targeting an N-terminal or central epitope, respectively, failed to meet their target of improving or stabilizing cognition and function. Preliminary data from off-label treatment of a small cohort for 3 years with intravenous polyclonal immunoglobulins (IVIG) that appear to target different conformational epitopes indicate a cognitive stabilization. Thus, it might be the more promising strategy reducing the whole spectrum of Aβ-aggregates than to focus on a single aggregate species for immunization.

In Alzheimer's disease, substantial evidence indicates the causative role of soluble amyloid β (Aβ) aggregates. Although a variety of Aβ assemblies have been described, the debate about their individual relevance is still ongoing. One critical issue hampering this debate is the use of different methods for the characterization of endogenous and synthetic peptide and their intrinsic limitations for distinguishing Aβ aggregates. Here, we used different protocols for the establishment of prefibrillar Aβ assemblies with varying morphologies and sizes and compared them in a head-to-head fashion. Aggregation was characterized via the monomeric peptide over time until spheroidal, protofibrillar, or fibrillar Aβ aggregates were predominant. It could be shown that a change in the ionic environment induced a structural rearrangement, which consequently confounds the delineation of a measured neurotoxicity toward a distinct Aβ assembly. Here, neuronal binding and hippocampal neurotransmission were found to be suitable to account for the synaptotoxicity to different Aβ assemblies, based on the stability of the applied Aβ aggregates in these settings. In contrast to monomeric or fibrillar Aβ, different prefibrillar Aβ aggregates targeted neurons and impaired hippocampal neurotransmission with nanomolar potency, albeit by different modalities. Spheroidal Aβ aggregates inhibited NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, as opposed to protofibrillar Aβ aggregates, which inhibited AMPAR-dominated basal neurotransmission. In addition, a provoked structural conversion of spheroidal to protofibrillar Aβ assemblies resulted in a time-dependent suppression of basal neurotransmission, indicative of a mechanistic switch in synaptic impairment. Thus, we emphasize the importance of addressing the metastability of prefacto characterized Aβ aggregates in assigning a biological effect.

No abstract

Amyloid-beta (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) appeared to be a promising target for disease-modifying therapeutic strategies like passive immunotherapy with anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Biochemical markers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) include alterations of Aβ that allow the diagnosis of AD. Biomarker strategies, such as the levels of Aβ in CSF and plasma, currently play an important role in early clinical trials for AD. Indeed, these strategies have a relevant impact on the outcome of such studies, since the biomarkers are used to monitor the bioactivity of anti-Aβ mAbs. The clinical trials of Solanezumab were mainly based on the readout of Aβ levels in CSF and plasma, whereas those of Bapineuzumab were based on cognition; however, little is known about the mechanisms altering these biomarker levels, and no biomarker has yet been proven to be a successful predictor for AD therapy. In addition, the Aβ biomarkers allow for the determination of free and bound anti-Aβ mAb in order to monitor the available amount of bioactive drug and could give hints to the mechanism of action. In this review, we discuss clinical Aβ biomarker data and the latest regulatory strategies.