Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HurricaneHenry t1_iycm1fw wrote

I thought it was common knowledge in the medical community now that ameloid plaques were just a minor symptom-contributor for being at the scene of the crime, and not the driver of the disease. That's been my takeaway from listening to various prominent Alzheimer's researchers at least.


scudobuio OP t1_iycola8 wrote

I’d have to do some more research myself. It sounds like you have a more sophisticated understanding than I do.

Regardless, potential Alzheimer’s treatments have mostly been a cascade of failures, so I can see the optimism here. Even finding a drug that correlates with slower ameloid buildup is good news, because (to further your analogy) it might give detectives more evidence regarding the actual crime. For example, now researchers might be able to tease out variables in order to narrow down a causation, which could make it easier to identify more (and possibly more important) correlations. It’s just a small step, but the first in a long time that feels like the correct direction.


kintleko t1_iydwacg wrote

It is common knowledge that the amyloid hypothesis only holds water for about 1% of all Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Those folks inherit genetic susceptibility factors that cause higher amyloid production or slower amyloid clearance, and they develop AD earlier than sporadic cases. We still routinely use those amyloid-heavy genetic mouse models of Alzheimer's in the lab to test memory effects of different drugs or interventions, so there's still a heavy amyloid basis in research even though it may not apply to most AD cases.