A poorly understood feature of the tauopathies is their very different clinical presentations. The frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) spectrum is dominated by motor and emotional/psychiatric abnormalities, whereas cognitive and memory deficits are prominent in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We report two novel mouse models overexpressing different human tau protein constructs. One is a full-length tau carrying a double mutation [P301S/G335D; line 66 (L66)] and the second is a truncated 3-repeat tau fragment which constitutes the bulk of the PHF core in AD corresponding to residues 296–390 fused with a signal sequence targeting it to the endoplasmic reticulum membrane (line 1; L1). L66 has abundant tau pathology widely distributed throughout the brain, with particularly high counts of affected neurons in hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. The pathology is neuroanatomically static and declines with age. Behaviourally, the model is devoid of a higher cognitive phenotype but presents with sensorimotor impairments and motor learning phenotypes. L1 displays a much weaker histopathological phenotype, but shows evidence of neuroanatomical spread and amplification with age that resembles the Braak staging of AD. Behaviourally, the model has minimal motor deficits but shows severe cognitive impairments affecting particularly the rodent equivalent of episodic memory which progresses with advancing age. In both models, tau aggregation can be dissociated from abnormal phosphorylation. The two models make possible the demonstration of two distinct but nevertheless convergent pathways of tau molecular pathogenesis. L1 appears to be useful for modelling the cognitive impairment of AD, whereas L66 appears to be more useful for modelling the motor features of the FTLD spectrum. Differences in clinical presentation of AD-like and FTLD syndromes are therefore likely to be inherent to the respective underlying tauopathy, and are not dependent on presence or absence of concomitant APP pathology.

Given the repeated failure of amyloid-based approaches in Alzheimer’s disease, there is increasing interest in tau-based therapeutics. Although methylthioninium (MT) treatment was found to be beneficial in tau transgenic models, the brain concentrations required to inhibit tau aggregation in vivo are unknown. The comparative efficacy of methylthioninium chloride (MTC) and leucomethylthioninium salts (LMTX; 5–75 mg/kg; oral administration for 3–8 weeks) was assessed in two novel transgenic tau mouse lines. Behavioural (spatial water maze, RotaRod motor performance) and histopathological (tau load per brain region) proxies were applied. Both MTC and LMTX dose-dependently rescued the learning impairment and restored behavioural flexibility in a spatial problem-solving water maze task in Line 1 (minimum effective dose: 35 mg MT/kg for MTC, 9 mg MT/kg for LMTX) and corrected motor learning in Line 66 (effective doses: 4 mg MT/kg). Simultaneously, both drugs reduced the number of tau-reactive neurons, particularly in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex in Line 1 and in a more widespread manner in Line 66. MT levels in the brain followed a sigmoidal concentration–response relationship over a 10-fold range (0.13–1.38 μmol/l). These data establish that diaminophenothiazine compounds, like MT, can reverse both spatial and motor learning deficits and reduce the underlying tau pathology, and therefore offer the potential for treatment of tauopathies.

Background: Symptomatic treatments of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) with cholinesterase inhibitors and/or memantine are relatively ineffective and there is a need for new treatments targeting the underlying pathology of AD. In most of the failed disease-modifying trials, patients have been allowed to continue taking symptomatic treatments at stable doses, under the assumption that they do not impair efficacy. In recently completed Phase 3 trials testing the tau aggregation inhibitor leuco-methylthioninium bis (hydromethanesulfonate) (LMTM), we found significant differences in treatment response according to whether patients were taking LMTM either as monotherapy or as an add-on to symptomatic treatments. Methods: We have examined the effect of either LMTM alone or chronic rivastigmine prior to LMTM treatment of tau transgenic mice expressing the short tau fragment that constitutes the tangle filaments of AD. We have measured acetylcholine levels, synaptosomal glutamate release, synaptic proteins, mitochondrial complex IV activity, tau pathology and Choline Acetyltransferase (ChAT) immunoreactivity. Results: LMTM given alone increased hippocampal Acetylcholine (ACh) levels, glutamate release from synaptosomal preparations, synaptophysin levels in multiple brain regions and mitochondrial complex IV activity, reduced tau pathology, partially restored ChAT immunoreactivity in the basal forebrain and reversed deficits in spatial learning. Chronic pretreatment with rivastigmine was found to reduce or eliminate almost all these effects, apart from a reduction in tau aggregation pathology. LMTM effects on hippocampal ACh and synaptophysin levels were also reduced in wild-type mice. Conclusion: The interference with the pharmacological activity of LMTM by a cholinesterase inhibitor can be reproduced in a tau transgenic mouse model and, to a lesser extent, in wild-type mice. Long-term pretreatment with a symptomatic drug alters a broad range of brain responses to LMTM across different transmitter systems and cellular compartments at multiple levels of brain function. There is, therefore, no single locus for the negative interaction. Rather, the chronic neuronal activation induced by reducing cholinesterase function produces compensatory homeostatic downregulation in multiple neuronal systems. This reduces a broad range of treatment responses to LMTM associated with a reduction in tau aggregation pathology. Since the interference is dictated by homeostatic responses to prior symptomatic treatment, it is likely that there would be similar interference with other drugs tested as add-on to the existing symptomatic treatment, regardless of the intended therapeutic target or mode of action. The present findings outline key results that now provide a working model to explain interference by symptomatic treatment.