Review Special Issues

The role of immunity and neuroinflammation in genetic predisposition and pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease

  • Alzheimer's disease is an important public concern with rising prevalence across the globe. While many therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease have been developed, there are currently no validated disease-modifying treatments. Thus, in order to develop novel treatment strategies, there is a significant need to progress our understanding of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. Several large genome-wide association studies and whole genome and exome sequencing studies have identified novel genes associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Interestingly, many of the genes are associated with inflammation and the immune system, including complement receptor 1, clusterin, CD33, EPH receptor A1, membrane-spanning 4-domains subfamily A, ATP-binding cassette sub-family A member 7, major histocompatibility complex class II, inositol polyphosphate-5-phosphatase, myocyte enhancer factor 2C, and triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2. The pathogenetic contributions of immune reaction and neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease have been regarded largely as part of amyloid cascade hypothesis. The neurotoxic amyloid-β (Aβ) induces activation of immune cells, such as microglia, astrocytes, perivascular macrophages and lymphocytes and decreased capability of clearing Aβ by immune system and chronic inflammation caused by activated immune cells aggravate neuronal damage and eventually Alzheimer's disease. But the precise mechanism and hereditary impact on such process is largely unknown. The current findings in genetic studies suggest that the immunological mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease may extend beyond passive reaction of Aβ, including the development of Alzheimer's disease such as time of onset and rate of progression. In this article, we aimed to review the mechanisms of immune reaction and neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease, with an emphasis on the function of genes known to be associated with a risk of Alzheimer's disease in terms of neuroinflammation and immune function.

    Citation: Seoyoung Yoon, Yong-Ku Kim. The role of immunity and neuroinflammation in genetic predisposition and pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease[J]. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(3): 230-249. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.3.230

    Related Papers:

    [1] Jiachao Wu, Lingqiang Li, Weihua Sun . Gödel semantics of fuzzy argumentation frameworks with consistency degrees. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 4045-4064. doi: 10.3934/math.2020260
    [2] Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Saeed, Khuram Ali Khan, Nehad Ali Shah, Wajaree Weera, Jae Dong Chung . A robust MADM-approach to recruitment-based pattern recognition by using similarity measures of interval-valued fuzzy hypersoft set. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 12321-12341. doi: 10.3934/math.2023620
    [3] Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Saeed, Atiqe Ur Rahman, Sanaa A. Bajri, Haifa Alqahtani, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa . Modeling uncertainties associated with multi-attribute decision-making based evaluation of cooling system using interval-valued complex intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft settings. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11396-11422. doi: 10.3934/math.2024559
    [4] Muhammad Ihsan, Muhammad Saeed, Alhanouf Alburaikan, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa . Product evaluation through multi-criteria decision making based on fuzzy parameterized Pythagorean fuzzy hypersoft expert set. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11024-11052. doi: 10.3934/math.2022616
    [5] Atiqe Ur Rahman, Muhammad Saeed, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, Walaa Abdullah Afifi . Decision making algorithmic techniques based on aggregation operations and similarity measures of possibility intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 3866-3895. doi: 10.3934/math.2022214
    [6] Jiachao Wu . A Boolean model for conflict-freeness in argumentation frameworks. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3913-3919. doi: 10.3934/math.2023195
    [7] S. Neelakandan, Sathishkumar Veerappampalayam Easwaramoorthy, A. Chinnasamy, Jaehyuk Cho . Fuzzy adaptive learning control network (FALCN) for image clustering and content-based image retrieval on noisy dataset. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18314-18338. doi: 10.3934/math.2023931
    [8] Muhammad Akram, Naila Ramzan, Anam Luqman, Gustavo Santos-García . An integrated MULTIMOORA method with 2-tuple linguistic Fermatean fuzzy sets: Urban quality of life selection application. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 2798-2828. doi: 10.3934/math.2023147
    [9] Ibtesam Alshammari, Islam M. Taha . On fuzzy soft $ \beta $-continuity and $ \beta $-irresoluteness: some new results. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11304-11319. doi: 10.3934/math.2024554
    [10] Doaa Al-Sharoa . (α1, 2, β1, 2)-complex intuitionistic fuzzy subgroups and its algebraic structure. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 8082-8116. doi: 10.3934/math.2023409
  • Alzheimer's disease is an important public concern with rising prevalence across the globe. While many therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease have been developed, there are currently no validated disease-modifying treatments. Thus, in order to develop novel treatment strategies, there is a significant need to progress our understanding of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. Several large genome-wide association studies and whole genome and exome sequencing studies have identified novel genes associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Interestingly, many of the genes are associated with inflammation and the immune system, including complement receptor 1, clusterin, CD33, EPH receptor A1, membrane-spanning 4-domains subfamily A, ATP-binding cassette sub-family A member 7, major histocompatibility complex class II, inositol polyphosphate-5-phosphatase, myocyte enhancer factor 2C, and triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2. The pathogenetic contributions of immune reaction and neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease have been regarded largely as part of amyloid cascade hypothesis. The neurotoxic amyloid-β (Aβ) induces activation of immune cells, such as microglia, astrocytes, perivascular macrophages and lymphocytes and decreased capability of clearing Aβ by immune system and chronic inflammation caused by activated immune cells aggravate neuronal damage and eventually Alzheimer's disease. But the precise mechanism and hereditary impact on such process is largely unknown. The current findings in genetic studies suggest that the immunological mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease may extend beyond passive reaction of Aβ, including the development of Alzheimer's disease such as time of onset and rate of progression. In this article, we aimed to review the mechanisms of immune reaction and neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease, with an emphasis on the function of genes known to be associated with a risk of Alzheimer's disease in terms of neuroinflammation and immune function.


    Dung's theory of argumentation frameworks (abbreviated as AF) [1] has been applied in a large variety of fields, ranging from decision-making [2,3], non-monotonic reasoning [4], multi-agent systems [5,6], to law [7], voting [8], etc. In fuzzy AFs, arguments and/or attacks are assigned fuzzy degrees to capture the uncertainty issued from the partly trusted information in case of incompleteness, ambiguity, vagueness, etc.

    A core problem in fuzzy AFs is to explore the fuzzy semantics, i.e., to calculate an acceptable degree for each argument by changing the initial fuzzy degree of the argument. Researchers has proposed a variety of approaches for this aim. Some literature identified the acceptable degrees of arguments by establishing fuzzy semantic systems. For example, [9,10] partly accepted the attack relation and defence relation between fuzzy argument sets, and built a fuzzy system including the $ x $-conflict-free sets, $ y $-admissible sets, $ y $-preferred sets, etc.; [11] introduced sufficient attacks and weakening acceptability between fuzzy sets of arguments, then established a fuzzy extension system in Dung's way. More works provided algorithms for modifying the degrees based on the investigation of the principles for modifying the degrees of arguments and/or the properties of the accepted degrees.

    For instance, [12,13,14] investigated more than twenty principles and/or properties, and established several algorithms to calculate the acceptable degrees of arguments. [15] introduced three principles and defined a semantics called the fuzzy reinstatement labelling ($ FRL) $, which identified a class of acceptable degrees of arguments and has been proven to be a preferred extension in [11]. Moreover, [15,16] investigated an algorithm named the fuzzy labelling algorithm ($ FLAlg $), to calculate the $ FRL $ by infinitely approximating the limit of an iteration sequence.

    The theory in [15,16] not only established the semantic system $ FRL $ to identify the acceptability of arguments, but also studied the algorithm $ FLAlg $ to calculate the $ FRL $. However, the $ FLAlg $ can not provide an exact $ FRL $. In addition, its complexity not only depends on the number of arguments, but also depends on the accuracy of approximation degrees. When higher accuracy is acquired, the length of the sequence and hence the amount of computation will quickly increase. Therefore, if an algorithm can avoid the process of infinite approximation, its computational complexity will be significantly reduced because it has nothing to do with accuracy. The purpose of this paper is to explore such a new algorithm for $ FRL $.

    In this paper, firstly, we investigate the limits of the $ FLAlg $ for some basic cases of fuzzy AFs, including trees, even cycles, and odd cycles. Exact values of the limit are provided for such fuzzy AFs instead of the approximation proposed by $ FLAlg $. Then, we give a new algorithm of $ FRL $: A fuzzy AF is divided into simple subframes along strongly connected components (SCCs). Every subframe on different SCCs is calculated separately. And the final result for $ FRL $ is obtained by combining the values in the subframes.

    The efficiency of the new algorithm is embodied in two aspects. First, an exact limit of the $ FLAlg $ is provided directly for trees, odd cycles, and even cycles by the theorems in Section 3. In particular, for the trees and odd cycles, the infinite approximation process is avoided; and for the even cycles, the infinite approximating process is converted into a finite process by adding a stop condition in Theorem 5 (2). Second, for the complex fuzzy AFs, the complexity of the new algorithm decreases with the reduction of the number of arguments: The limit of the $ FLAlg $ for simple subframe can be obtained directly; and the values of complicated subframe, whose arguments are less, is computed by the $ FLAlg $.

    The contents are arranged as follows. Section 2 reviews some basic concepts of fuzzy AFs. In Section 3, we provide some calculation methods for some basic cases of fuzzy AFs, including trees, odd cycles, and even cycles. In Section 4, the efficient algorithm of fuzzy reinstatement labelling is provided. In Section 5, we show the relationship between the fuzzy reinstatement labelling and the preferred semantics in [11]. Finally, we conclude this paper.

    In this section, we will review some related background knowledge in the paper [15] by da Costa Pereira et al.

    The uncertainty in da Costa Pereira et al.'s framework comes from the trustworthiness of the source proposing the piece of information (argument).

    Definition 1. A fuzzy AF in [15] is a tuple $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $, where $ \mathcal{A}\colon Args\rightarrow [0, 1] $ assigns a trust degree to each argument in $ Args $, and $ \rightarrow $ is a crisp set of attacks between the arguments in $ Args $.

    Denote $ src(A) $ the set of the sources of $ A $. The value of $ \mathcal{A}(A) $ is shown below,

    $ \mathcal{A}(A) = \max\limits_{s\in src(A)}\tau_s, \ \ \forall A\in Args, $

    where $ \tau_s $ is the degree to which the source $ s\in src(A) $ is trusted.

    Definition 2. (Fuzzy AF-labelling) Let $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $ be a fuzzy argumentation framework. A fuzzy AF-labelling is a total function $ \alpha\colon\mathcal{A}\rightarrow [0, 1] $.

    In fact, there are many argumentation systems similar to the above models, such as [12,13,17,18,19]. And in this paper, we take da Costa Pereira's model as an example to illustrate our algorithm.

    In order to explore the acceptability of arguments, two intuitive postulates are introduced in [15]:

    ● The acceptability of an argument should not be greater than the degree to which the arguments attacking it are unacceptable:

    $ \alpha(A)\leq1-\max\limits_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B).\ $

    ● An argument cannot be more acceptable than the degree to which its sources are trusted:

    $ \alpha(A)\leq\mathcal{A}(A). $

    Definition 3. (Fuzzy reinstatement labelling) Let $ \alpha $ be a fuzzy AF-labelling. It is said that $ \alpha $ is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling iff, for each argument $ A $,

    $ \alpha(A) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(A),1-\max\limits_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B)\}. $

    The definition of fuzzy reinstatement labelling is very similar to a preferred semantics, which indicates that an agent should accept as large as possible trust degree of argument. Naturally, the acceptable degree of each argument cannot be greater than the initial degree of trust. In the meantime, intuitively, the acceptable degree of each argument cannot be greater than the complement of defeated degree which is defeated. It seems as $ B $ is defeated by $ A $ and $ A $ is accepted, then $ B $ is unacceptable. Also in Caminada's labelling theory [20], if $ Lab(A) = in $ and $ A $ attacks $ B $, then $ Lab(B) = out $. So the arguments with a defeated degree are futile since they are defeated by accepted arguments. Therefore, the belief degree of argument cannot be greater than the complement degree of defeated degree, namely $ \alpha(A)\leq 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) $.

    In order to define admissible labelling, the absence of illegally labeled arguments is required. In fact, some arguments may be illegally labeled, i.e. $ \alpha(A)\neq\min\{\mathcal{A}(A), 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B)\} $. Inspired by Caminada's idea in [21], a fuzzy labelling algorithm for calculating fuzzy reinstatement labelling is provided. The way of changing the illegal label of an argument, without creating other illegally labeled arguments, is introduced as follows.

    Definition 4. (The fuzzy labelling algorithm ($ FLAlg $), Definition 12 on Page 5 of [15]) Let $ \alpha_t $ be a fuzzy labelling. An iteration in $ \alpha_t $ is carried out by computing a new labelling $ \alpha_{t+1} $ for all arguments $ A $ as follows:

    $ αt+1(A)=12αt(A)+12min{A(A), 1maxB:BAαt(B)},
    $
    (2.1)

    where $ \alpha_0(A) = \mathcal{A}(A) $.

    Note that Eq (2.1) guarantees that $ \alpha_t(A)\leq\mathcal{A}(A) $ for all arguments $ A $ and each $ t $. This definition defines a sequence $ \{\alpha_t\}_{t = 0, 1, ...} $ of labellings.

    Theorem 1. (Theorem 1 in [15])The sequence $ \{\alpha_t\}_{t = 0, 1, ...} $ defined above converges.

    Then the limit of $ \alpha_t(A) $ is the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of $ A $, i.e. $ \alpha(A) = \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A)\in[0, 1] $. da Costa Pereira et al. [15] show that the convergence speed of the labelling algorithm is linear (as their proof of convergence suggests).

    In the following sections, we will find a way to calculate the exact values of $ \alpha $ for some special cases, instead of approaching it by $ \alpha_t $.

    This section further studies the $ FLAlg $, and presents its limits for some particular fuzzy AFs: (1) The trees [22]---the fuzzy AFs without cycles, (2) the cycles with odd/even number of nodes.

    In a fuzzy AF, if a set of arguments $ A_1, A_2, ..., A_n $ satisfies that $ (A_i, A_{i+1})\in \rightarrow $, for $ i = 1, 2, ..., n $, and $ (A_n, A_1)\in \rightarrow $, then we call it a cycle in the fuzzy AF. Intuitively, a cycle is the following graph.

    $ A_1\rightarrow A_2\rightarrow ...\rightarrow A_n\rightarrow A_1. $

    Moreover, if $ n $ is odd, the cycle is called an odd cycle; and if $ n $ is even, the cycle is called an even cycle.

    In the previous literature, there are amounts of related work that concentrates on the semantics of uncertain AFs without circles, such as [13,17,23]. In their papers, under the uncertain argumentation settings, every argument may have a basic strength, which is expressed as the weight of the argument. In this paper, the weight is represented by fuzzy degrees. Generally speaking, the exploitation of the semantics of acyclic argument frameworks is a basic requirement. An acyclic fuzzy AF is formed as Figure 1, we intend to directly obtain the exact limit of these arguments rather than continuously approaching the limit of the iteration sequence in Definition 4.

    Figure 1.  An example of an acyclic uncertain AF (the subscripts of arguments represent trust degree).

    We first introduce some notations, for an argument $ A\in Args $, denote the set $ \{B\in Args\colon (B, A)\in \rightarrow \} $ by att(A). And for a set $ S\subseteq Args $ of arguments, denote the set $ \{B\in Args\colon \exists A\in S \; {\rm{ s.t. }}\; (B, A)\in \rightarrow \} $ by att(S).

    First, we calculate the $ FRL $ for some simple cases, which will be helpful to understand the main calculation theorem. If an argument is not attacked, it is reasonable to maintain its initial value. Then we have the next lemma.

    Lemma 1. Suppose $ A $ is an argument in a fuzzy AF $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $, with $ att(A) = \emptyset $.Then $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A) = \mathcal{A}(A) $.

    If an argument $ B $ is attacked by an argument $ A $ with $ \mathcal{A}(A)+\mathcal{A}(B)\leq1 $, then we can ignore the influence of $ A $ on $ B $. In this case, the $ FRL $ of $ B $ also should keep its initial value. This can be summarised as the next lemma.

    Lemma 2. If $ att(B) = \{A\} $, with $ \mathcal{A}(A)+\mathcal{A}(B)\leq1 $, then $ \alpha_t(B) = \mathcal{A}(B) $ for all $ t = 0, 1, ... $Therefore,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = \mathcal{A}(B). $

    Another simple case is that $ B $ is attacked by only one argument $ A $, which is not attacked. In this case, the $ FRL $ of $ B $ is either $ \mathcal{A}(B) $ or $ 1-\mathcal{A}(A) $. And we get the next lemma.

    Lemma 3. Suppose $ att(B) = \{A\} $ and $ att(A) = \emptyset $ in a fuzzy AF $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $. The limit of $ \alpha_t(B) $ is the minimum of $ \mathcal{A}(B) $ and $ 1-\mathcal{A}(A) $, i.e.$ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-\mathcal{A}(A)\} $.

    Proof. See Appendix A.1.

    As we know, for any $ A\in\mathcal{A} $, $ \alpha_t(A) $ always converges. The following theorem shows that if an argument $ B $ has only one attacker $ A $, then the limits of $ B $ is the minimum of $ \mathcal{A}(B) $ or $ 1-\alpha(A) $.

    Theorem 2. Suppose $ att(B) = \{A\} $ and $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A) = a $.Then the limit of $ \alpha_t(B) $ is the minimum of $ \mathcal{A}(B) $ and $ 1-a $, i.e.

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A)\}. $
    $ \alpha(B) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B),1-\alpha(A)\}. $

    Proof. See Appendix A.2.

    Example 1. Consider the AF in the form of attack sequence $ A_0\rightarrow A_1 \rightarrow A_2\rightarrow... \rightarrow A_n $. By Theorem 3.1, if for each $ A_i $, $ i = 0, 1, ..., n $, the initial labelling $ \mathcal{A}(A_i) $ is big enough, the limits of them will be $ a, 1-a, a, 1-a, ... $, where $ a = \mathcal{A}(A_0) $.

    For an attack sequence $ A_0\rightarrow A_1 \rightarrow A_2\rightarrow... $, if we calculate the arguments one by one according to Theorem 3.1, we can obtain the next result.

    Proposition 1. Given an attack sequence $ A_0\rightarrow A_1 \rightarrow A_2\rightarrow... $, if for some $ i_0\in N $, $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0}) \leq \min_{j\colon j < i_0} \{1-\mathcal{A}(A_j), \mathcal{A}(A_j)\} $, then

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{i_0}) = \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0}). $

    Proof. See Appendix A.3.

    Theorem 2 can be extended to the next theorem, which is the main result of this subsection and computes the $ FRL $ of nodes in acyclic fuzzy AF.

    Theorem 3. (Calculation theorem for acyclic nodes) In a fuzzy AF $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $, if $ att(B) = \{A_1, ..., A_n\} $ and $ \alpha(A_i) $, $ i = 1, 2, ..., n $, are already obtained, then

    $ \alpha(B) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-\alpha(A_1),1-\alpha(A_2),...,1-\alpha(A_n)\}. $

    Proof. See Appendix A.4.

    Example 2. Let $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $ be a fuzzy AF with $ \mathcal{A} = \{(A, 0.3), $ $ (B, 0.6), $ $ (C, 0.7), $ $ (D, 0.8), $ $ (E, 0.8)\} $ and $ \rightarrow = \{A\rightarrow B, B\rightarrow C, C\rightarrow E, A\rightarrow D, D\rightarrow E\} $.

    The fuzzy reinstatement labelling of each argument can be calculated as follows:

    From Lemma 1,

    $ \alpha(A) = \mathcal{A}(A) = 0.3. $

    By Theorem 2, we can get

    $\alpha(B) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B),1-\alpha(A)\} = 0.6,$ $\alpha(C) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(C),1-\alpha(B)\} = 0.4$, $\alpha(D) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(D),1-\alpha(A)\} = 0.7$.

    By Theorem 3, we have

    $ \alpha(E) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(E), 1-\alpha(C), 1-\alpha(D)\} = 0.3. $

    Now, we deal with fuzzy AFs of odd circles and even circles.

    We first introduce some notations. Given a cycle $ A_1\rightarrow A_2\rightarrow...\rightarrow A_n\rightarrow A_1 $, by Theorem 1, for any $ 1\leq i\leq n $, $ \alpha(A_i) $ always exists. And we denote $ \alpha(A_i) = a_i $. Given a finite set of arguments $ \{A_1, ..., A_n\} $, there must be some $ i_0\in\{1, 2, ..., n\} $ s.t. $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0}) = \min_{i = 1, ..., n}\mathcal{A}(A_i) $. When $ \{A_1, ..., A_n\} $ is a cycle, even or odd, without loss of generality, we can suppose $ i_0 = 1 $, i.e., $ \mathcal{A}(A_1) = \min_{i = 1, ..., n}\mathcal{A}(A_i) $.

    The fuzzy reinstatement labelling of odd cycles can be calculated by the following theorem.

    Theorem 4. (Calculation theorem for odd circle) Suppose $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $ is a fuzzy AF in the form of an odd cycle, like $ A_1\rightarrow A_2\rightarrow...\rightarrow A_n\rightarrow A_1 $.Without loss of generality, we may assume that $ \mathcal{A}(A_1) = \min_{i = 1, ..., n} \mathcal{A}(A_i) $.Let $ a = \mathcal{A}(A_1) $.

    (1) If $ a < 0.5 $, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling can be calculated as the line

    $ A_1\rightarrow A_2\rightarrow ...\rightarrow A_{n}. $

    (2) If $ a\geq 0.5 $, all the fuzzy reinstatement labellings are 0.5, i.e., $ \alpha(A_i) = 0.5 $, for all $ 1\leq i \leq n $.

    Proof. See Appendix A.5.

    Example 3. Consider $ AF = \{A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C \rightarrow A\} $. If $ \mathcal{A}(A) = 1, \mathcal{A}(B) = 0.8, \mathcal{A}(C) = 0.7 $, then by Theorem 4, $ \alpha(A) = \alpha(B) = \alpha(C) = 0.5 $.

    If $ \mathcal{A}(A) = 4, \mathcal{A}(B) = 0.8, \mathcal{A}(C) = 0.7 $, then by Theorem 4, $ \alpha(A) = \alpha(C) = 0.4 $ and $ \alpha(B) = 0.6 $.

    Now, let's consider the even cycles.

    Theorem 5. (Calculation theorem for even circle) Let $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $ be fuzzy AF in form of an even cycle:

    $ A_1\rightarrow A_2\rightarrow ...\rightarrow A_{2n-1}\rightarrow A_{2n} \rightarrow A_1. $

    Suppose $ m_1 = \min_{i = 1, ..., n}\{\mathcal{A}(A_{2i-1})\} = \mathcal{A}(A_1) $and $ m_2 = \min_{i = 1, ..., n}\{\mathcal{A}(A_{2i})\} = \mathcal{A}(A_{2i_0}) $, for some $ i_0\leq n $.

    (1) If $ m_1+m_2\leq1 $, then the reinstatement labellings can be calculated as a line

    $ A1A2...A2i01A2i0A2i0+1...A2n.
    $
    (3.1)

    (2) If $ m_1+m_2 > 1 $, then there must exist some $ N\in\mathbb{N} $, such that $ \forall t\geq N $, $ \alpha_t(A_{2i-1})\in(1-m_2, m_1) $, and $ \alpha_t(A_{2i})\in(1-m_1, m_2) $, $ \forall i = 1, 2, ..., n $.And the reinstatement labellings can be calculated as follows: For any $ i\in \{1, 2, ..., n\} $,

    $ α(A2i)=nk=1αN(A2k)/n,α(A2i1)=nk=1αN(A2k1)/n.
    $
    (3.2)

    Moreover, $ \sum_{i = 1}^{2n}\alpha(A_i) = n $.

    From the supposition $ \mathcal{A}(A_1) = \min_{i = 1, 2, ..., 2n}\mathcal{A}(A_i) $, we have $ m_1\leq m_2 $. In other words, given an even cycle, the line in Eq (3.1) is started from the least element of the even cycle.

    Proof. See Appendix A.6.

    Corollary 1. For the case $ m_1+m_2 > 1 $ in Theorem 5, suppose that for $ i\in \{0, 1, 2, ..., n-1\} $,

    $ α(A2i)=n1k=0α1(A2k)/n,α(A2i+1)=n1k=0α1(A2k+1)/n.
    $
    (3.3)

    Then $ \alpha $ is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling.

    Proof. In this case, let $ N = 1 $, then from the proof of Theorem 5, it is valid.

    It should be emphasized that the result of Theorem 5 coincides with the exact value of the limit of da Costa Pereira's $ FLAlg $ while the result of Corollary 1 is not. But the result of Corollary 1 satisfies the requirement of fuzzy reinstatement labelling in Definition 3. Namely, the result of Corollary 1 also can be regarded as a reasonable fuzzy reinstatement labelling.

    Example 4. Let $ AF = \{A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C \rightarrow D\rightarrow A\} $, and $ \mathcal{A}(A) = 1, \mathcal{A}(B) = 0.34, \mathcal{A}(C) = 0.8, \mathcal{A}(D) = 0.3 $. Then the fuzzy reinstatement of $ A $, calculated by Theorem 5, is 0.78, instead of 0.79, which is calculated by Eq (3.3) in the corollary.

    The main aim of this section is to propose a new algorithm for fuzzy reinstatement labelling considering a single node, a simple cycle, or a complicated cycle.

    In the previous section, we calculated the fuzzy reinstatement labellings for three simple fuzzy AFs: Fuzzy AFs without cycles and fuzzy AFs consisting of odd cycles or even cycles. However, for a general fuzzy AF, it often consists of many simple nodes (not in circles), odd circles, even circles, and complicated circles (including multiple odd circles and even circles). For instance, the fuzzy AF in Figure 2.

    Figure 2.  A fuzzy AF with simple nodes, simple circles, and complicated circles.

    It is beyond doubt that the fuzzy AF in Figure 2 can be calculated by the algorithm in Definition 4. However, it should be emphasized that when using the previous fuzzy labelling algorithm $ FLAlg $ to calculate each argument, we should always consider the fuzzy labelling of all the attackers, and in turn the attackers of attackers. And thus in the case of arbitrary fuzzy AF, no matter simple nodes, odd circles, even circles, and complicated circles, we need to iteratively use the Eq (2.1) in Definition 4. The complexity of this algorithm is obviously high even for these simple nodes and simple circles. Inspired by Baroni's idea in [24], in this section, we will provide a strongly connected components decomposed scheme for a general fuzzy AF. Unlike crisp AFs, the arguments of fuzzy AFs are associated with fuzzy degrees and thus we need to provide some modifications to this scheme. In this partition, each fuzzy AF is partitioned into many sub-frameworks which are simply strongly connected components (abbreviated as SCCs) and each SCC is a single node, odd circle, even circle, or complicated circle. For these single-node SCCs, odd circle SCCs, and even circle SCCs, they will be resolved by our method in Section 3 and complicated circle SCCs are computed by Eq (2.1) in $ FLAlg $. It should be stressed that the complexity of $ FLAlg $ is positively correlated with the number of arguments. And thus, with the reduction of arguments, those complicated circles sub-frameworks are easily calculated by da Costa Pereira's technology. In this way, each complicated fuzzy AF is partitioned into many simple sub-frameworks whose fuzzy reinstatement labellings can be efficiently computed. Therefore, an efficient algorithm can be provided based on this decomposition.

    In this section, we introduce the strongly connected components decomposed for fuzzy AFs. When a fuzzy AF is partitioned into many sub-frameworks, the raised question is that in which condition, the combination fuzzy reinstatement labellings of these sub-frameworks is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the original fuzzy AF. Since our partition is based on strongly connected components in graph theory, we first introduce the definition of strongly connected components in fuzzy AFs.

    Definition 5. Given a fuzzy AF $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $, the binary relation of path-equivalence between nodes, denoted as $ PE_{FAF}\subseteq Args\times Args $, is defined as follows:

    $ \forall A\in Args $, $ (A, A)\in PE_{FAF} $.

    Given two distinct arguments $ A, B\in Args, (A, B)\in PE_{FAF} $ if and only if there is a chain of attack relation from $ A $ to $ B $ and a chain of attack relation from $ B $ to $ A $.

    Definition 6. The strongly connected components of fuzzy AFs are the equivalence classes of nodes with the belief degree in $ \mathcal{A} $ under the relation of path-equivalence. Given a node $ A\in Args $, we define the strongly connected component $ A $ belongs to is denoted as $ SCC_{FAF}(A) $ where $ SCC_{FAF}(A) = \{(B, \mathcal{A}(B))\mid (A, B)\in PE_{FAF}\} $. The set of the strongly connected components of fuzzy AF is denoted as $ SCCS_{FAF} $.

    We extend to strongly connected components the notion of parents, denoting the set of the other strongly connected components that attack a strongly connected component $ S $ as $ sccparents_{FAF}(S) $.

    Definition 7. Given a fuzzy argumentation framework $ \langle \mathcal{A}, \rho\rangle $ and a strongly connected component $ S\in SCCS_{FAF} $, we define

    $ sccparentsFAF(S)={PSCCSFAFPSandPattacksS}.
    $

    A strongly connected component S such that $ sccparents_{FAF}(S) = \varnothing $ is called initial.

    Example 5. In Figure 2, $ SCC_1 = \{(A, 0.4)\} $, $ SCC_2 = \{(B, 0.8)\} $, $ SCC_3 = \{(C, 0.7), (D, 0.8)\} $, $ SCC_4 = \{(E, 0.7), (F, 0.9), (G, 0.6)\} $, $ SCC_5 = \{(H, 0.6), (L, 0.6), (M, 0.6), (N, 0.6)\}\} $, $ SCCS_{FAF} = \{\{(A, 0.4)\}, \{(B, 0.8)\}, \{(C, 0.7), $ $(D, 0.8)\}, \{(E, 0.7), (F, 0.9), (G, 0.6)\}, \{(H, 0.6), (L, 0.6), (M, 0.6), (N, 0.6)\}\} $.

    From Definition 3, it shows that the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of each argument is only dependent on the fuzzy reinstatement labellings of its attackers. Thus, according to attack relation, we can draw a partial order of SCCs. For instance, for the fuzzy AF in Figure 2, we can first calculate the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of $ A $ and $ B $. This step is easy to complete by applying Theorem 3. Then according to the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of $ B $, the following SCC ($ C $ and $ D $) can be calculated by Theorem 5. But, the fuzzy reinstatement labellings of $ C $ and $ D $ are certainly affected by the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of $ B $ from Definition 3. Therefore, the core of the question is how to remove the influence of the previous SCCs on the next SCC. We take the fuzzy AF in Figure 2 as an example.

    Example 6. From Theorem 3, we have $ \alpha(A) = 0.4 $ and $ \alpha(B) = 0.6 $. Since $ B $ attacks $ C $ and $ \alpha(B) = 0.6 $, we have that $ B $ with a degree of at least 0.4 is defeated by $ C $ and thus the maximum fuzzy reinstatement labelling of $ B $ cannot surplus 0.6 from Definition 3. In other words, the defeated degree of $ B $ is 0.4. As we have shown in Section 2, the arguments with the defeated degrees are futility since it is defeated by accepted arguments. Therefore, the arguments with defeated degrees form a defeated part which is defeated by the fuzzy reinstatement labellings of their attackers. The maximal possibility of an argument is the extent to which the other arguments fail to refute its truth. Thus, for an SCC, if we remove the defeated part which is affected by their parents, then this SCC is obviously unaffected by its SCC parents. For example, in Figure 2, from that $ \alpha(B) = 0.6 $ and thus the defeated degree of $ C $ w.r.t. $ B $ is 0.6. Consequently, $ SCC_3 $ is modified as $ \{(C, 0.4), (D, 0.8)\} $ (see Figure 3). In which, $ (C, 0.4) $ is unaffected by $ \alpha(B) = 0.6 $.

    Figure 3.  The modification of $ SCC_3 $.

    Then by applying Theorem 5, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the modified $ SCC_3 $ is $ \alpha(C) = 0.3 $ and $ \alpha(D) = 0.7 $. From that $ \alpha(D) = 0.7 $, $ SCC_4 $ is modified as $ \{(E, 0.3), (F, 0.9), (G, 0.6)\} $ (see Figure 4).

    Figure 4.  The modification of $ SCC_4 $.

    Then by applying Theorem 4, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the modified $ SCC_4 $ can be directly obtained: $ \alpha(E) = 0.3 $, $ \alpha(F) = 0.7 $, and $ \alpha(G) = 0.3 $. From that $ \alpha(F) = 0.7 $, $ SCC_5 $ is modified as $ \{(H, 0.3), (L, 0.6), (M, 0.6), (N, 0.6)\} $ (see Figure 5).

    Figure 5.  The modification of $ SCC_5 $.

    Then by applying fuzzy labelling algorithm, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the modified $ SCC_5 $ is $ \alpha(H) = 0.3 $, $ \alpha(L) = 0.6 $, $ \alpha(M) = 0.4 $, and $ \alpha(N) = 0.4 $.

    From the above statement, we can obtain a combination fuzzy reinstatement labelling $ \alpha(A) = 0.4 $, $ \alpha(B) = 0.6 $, $ \alpha(C) = 0.3 $, $ \alpha(D) = 0.7 $, $ \alpha(E) = 0.3 $, $ \alpha(F) = 0.7 $, $ \alpha(G) = 0.3 $, $ \alpha(H) = 0.3 $, $ \alpha(L) = 0.6 $, $ \alpha(M) = 0.4 $, and $ \alpha(N) = 0.4 $. From Definition 3, it is easy to verify that the combination labelling is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the original fuzzy AF.

    From this example, we can see that when a fuzzy AF is partitioned into many simple sub-frameworks by removing the defeated part, the complexity of the computation can be largely decreased. Is this example a coincidence? We will prove that when we partition a general fuzzy AF into many sub-frameworks by our means, the combination labelling is always a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the original fuzzy AF.

    Before the important theorem, we provide some notations.

    Definition 8. Given a fuzzy AF $ (Args, \rightarrow) $. Suppose $ S\in SCCS_{FAF} $ and $ \alpha $ be a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of $ sccparents(S) $. The defeat part of $ S $ is denoted as

    $DP_S = \{(A,a)\in S\mid a = \max\limits_{B:B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) \; where \; B\in sccparents(S)\}$.

    Then the residual part is denoted as

    $RP_S = \{(A,a)\in S\mid a = min\{\mathcal{A}(A),1-DP_{S}(A)\}\}$.

    Definition 9. Given a fuzzy AF $ (Args, \rightarrow) $ and $ S\in SCCS_{FAF} $. The sub-frameworks partition of the fuzzy AF along the strongly connected components is processed as follows:

    A sub-framework refers to $ S $ is defined as

    $FAF_S = FAF\downarrow_{RP_S} = \langle RP_S, \rightarrow_S\rangle$,

    where $ \rightarrow_S = \rightarrow \cap (RP_S\times RP_S) $.

    From Definitions 8 and 9, it shows that the partition forms a partial order. A modification of the specific SCC is based on its parents.

    Suppose $ \alpha_1 $, $ \alpha_2 $, $ \alpha_3 $, ..., $ \alpha_n $ are fuzzy reinstatement labellings of these sub-frameworks respectively, then the combination fuzzy reinstatement labelling is defined as follows:

    Definition 10. Suppose $ \alpha_1 $, $ \alpha_2 $, $ \alpha_3 $, ..., $ \alpha_n $ are fuzzy reinstatement labellings of these sub-frameworks respectively, then the combination labelling $ \alpha $ is defined as the disjunction of $ \alpha_1 $, $ \alpha_2 $, $ \alpha_3 $, ..., $ \alpha_n $.

    $ \alpha = \alpha_1\vee \alpha_2 \vee\alpha_3 \vee ...\vee \alpha_n. $

    Namely for each argument $ A\in Args $ and $ A\in S_i $, $ \alpha(A) = \alpha_i(A) $.

    Then the main conclusion is introduced in the following theorem.

    Theorem 6. Suppose $ \alpha_1 $, $ \alpha_2 $, $ \alpha_3 $, ..., $ \alpha_n $ are fuzzy reinstatement labellings of these sub-frameworks respectively, then the combination labelling $ \alpha $ is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the original fuzzy AF.

    Proof. See Appendix B.

    From the above definitions and theorem, we provide a SCC decomposed scheme for fuzzy AF. This method can partition a fuzzy AF into many simple sub-frameworks along with the strongly connected components. And the combination labelling of these sub-frameworks is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the original fuzzy AF.

    In this section, we provide the application of our SCC-decomposed method. The application procedure can be summarized as follows:

    (1) The fuzzy AF is partitioned into its strongly connected components; they form a partial order which encodes the dependencies existing among them according to the attack relation.

    (2) The initial SCCs remain unchanged and are calculated by our method or $ FLAlg $; the following SCCs are modified according to the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of their parents SCCs.

    (3) When all the sub-frameworks are computed, the fuzzy reinstatement labellings of these sub-frameworks are obtained; the combination of these fuzzy reinstatement labellings is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of the original fuzzy AF.

    The algorithm for the computation of fuzzy reinstatement labelling consists of Algorithms 1 and 2. In Algorithms 1, we process the computation of simple argumentation, which is a single node, a simple circle, or a complicated circle. If fuzzy AF is a single node, then the fuzzy reinstatement labelling is easy to obtain (lines 1–4). Analogously, if fuzzy AF is an odd circle, then the fuzzy reinstatement labelling can be calculated by Theorem 3.3 (lines 5–16). And, if fuzzy AF is an even circle, then the fuzzy reinstatement labelling can be calculated by Theorem 3.4 (lines 17–36). Finally, if fuzzy AF is a complicated circle, then the fuzzy reinstatement labelling can be calculated by the algorithm in Definition 2.1 (lines 37–45). Algorithm 2 implements the partition of a general fuzzy AF. In line 1, the strongly connected components of the fuzzy AF are identified. From [25], we have that an algorithm is available, which receives as input a fuzzy AF and returns as output a sequence $ (S_1, ..., S_n) $ including the strongly connected components of the fuzzy AF in topological order, i.e. if $ \exists A\in Supp(S_i) $, $ B\in Supp(S_j) $ such that $ A $ attacks $ B $ then $ i < j $. This can be done in linear time under the number of attacks [26]. Hence, if an SCC is initial, then it remains unchanged and be calculated by Algorithms 1. If an SCC is not initial, then it should be modified according to Definition 9. Then Algorithms 1 is again provoked. Finally, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling $ \alpha $ is a combination of fuzzy labelling of all the strongly connected components.

    Algorithm 1 $ Algo_1 $: Computing fuzzy reinstatement labelling of simple fuzzy AF
    Input: $ \Gamma = \langle S, \rightarrow \rangle $
    Output: $ \alpha $
      1:  if $ \Gamma $ is a single node then
      2:      for $ A_i\in Supp(S) $ do
      3:          $ \alpha(A_i) = S(A) $
      4:      end for
      5:  else if $ \Gamma $ is an odd circle then
      6:      $ m: = \min_{A_i\in Supp(S)}{S(A_i)} $
      7:      if $ m < 0.5 $ then
      8:          $ \alpha(A_i) = m $
      9:          for $ A_j\in Supp(S) $ do
      10:              $ \alpha(A_j) = min\{\max_{B: B\rightarrow A_j}1-\alpha(B), S(A_j)\} $
      11:            end for
      12:      else $ m\geq 0.5 $
      13:          for $ A\in Supp(S) $ do
      14:              $ \alpha(A) = 0.5 $
      15:          end for
      16:      end if
      17:  else if $ \Gamma $ is an even circle then
      18:      $ m_1: = S_i(A_j) = \min_{A_{2i}\in Supp(S_i)}{S_i(A_{2i})} $
      19:      $ m_2: = S_i(A_k) = \min_{A_{2i+1}\in Supp(S_i)}{S_i(A_{2i+1})} $
      20:      if $ m_1+m_2\leq 1 $ then
      21:          $ \alpha(A_{j}): = m_1 $
      22:          for $ A_i\in \{Supp(S)-A_j\} $ do
      23:              $ \alpha(A_i): = min\{\max\limits_{B: B\rightarrow A_i}1-\alpha(B), S(A_i)\} $
      24:          end for
      25:      else $ m_1+m_2 > 1 $
      26:          for $ A_i\in Supp(S) $ do
      27:              $ \alpha_0(A_i): = S(A_i) $
      28:          end for
      29:          for $ A_i\in Supp(S) $ do
      30:              $ \alpha_1(A_i): = \frac{1}{2}\alpha_0(A_i)+\frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(A_i), 1-\max\limits_{B\colon B\rightarrow A_i}\alpha_0(B)\} $
      31:          end for
      32:          for $ i = 0, 1, 2, ..., n-1 $ do
      33:              $ \alpha(A_{2i}): = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1}\alpha_1(A_{2k})/n $
      34:              $ \alpha(A_{2i+1}): = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1}\alpha_1(A_{2k+1})/n $
      35:        end for
      36:      end if
      37:  else $ \Gamma $ is a complicated circle
      38:      for $ A_i\in Supp(S) $ do
      39:          $ \alpha(A_i): = S(A_i) $
      40:      end for
      41:      repeat
      42:          for $ A_i\in Supp(S) $ do
      43:              $ \alpha(A_i): = \frac{1}{2}\alpha(A_i)+\frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(A_i), 1-\max\limits_{B\colon B\rightarrow A_i}\alpha(B)\} $
      44:          end for
      45:       until {$ \alpha $ satisfies the precision requirement}
      46:  end if

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Algorithm 2 $ Algo_2 $: Computing fuzzy reinstatement labelling of a fuzzy AF
    Input: $ \Gamma = \langle \mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $
    Output: $ \alpha $
      1:  $ (S_1, ..., S_n): = SCCSSEQ(\Gamma) $
      2:  for $ i\in \{1, ..., n\} $ do
      3:      if $ sccparents(S_i) = \emptyset $ then
      4:          $ \Gamma_i: = \langle S_i, \rightarrow_{S_i}\rangle $
      5:          $ \alpha_i: = Algo_1(\Gamma_i) $
      6:      else
      7:          $ \Gamma_j: = \langle RP_{S_j}, \rightarrow_{S_j}\rangle $
      8:          $ \alpha_i: = Algo_1(\Gamma_i) $
      9:      end if
      10:  end for
      11:  for $ i\in \{1, ..., n\} $ do
      12:      for $ A_j\in Supp(S_i) $ do
      13:          $ \alpha(A_j) = \alpha_i(A_j) $
      14:      end for
      15:  end for
      16:  return $ \alpha $

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Compared to $ FLAlg $, our algorithm directly provides an exact value of three types of simple fuzzy AFs---the trees, the even cycles, and the odd cycles. For these simple cases, the infinite approximation process in $ FLAlg $ is avoided, and the computational complexity has nothing to do with accuracy. For fuzzy AFs with many simple SCCs, our algorithm effectively puts forward the approximate limit of $ FLAlg $ by reducing the number of arguments in the infinite approximation process. But for the complex SCCs including few such simple nodes, our algorithm is not evidently better than the $ FLAlg $. As a result, when being applied in other fields, like the multi-agent systems [5,27], the input-output systems [28,29,30], control theory [31,32,33], etc., our algorithm is more suitable for the fuzzy AFs with many simple SCCs, especially for the most common fuzzy AFs---the trees.

    This section makes a parallel between the fuzzy reinstatement labelling and preferred extension in Gödel fuzzy AFs (abbreviated as GFAF).

    In the past sections, we have shown that: Regardless of the too low values,

    (1) In sequences, the values of $ \alpha(A) $ can be listed as $ a, 1-a, a, 1-a... $

    (2) In cycles, no matter even or odd, the values of $ \alpha(A) $ can be listed as $ a, 1-a, a, 1-a... $

    (3) For the arguments $ A $, which there are no arguments attack, $ \alpha(A) = \mathcal{A}(A) $.

    Actually, these are also properties of preferred/stable extensions in GFAF. Then we can guess: Fuzzy reinstatement labelling can be seen as a preferred/stable extension. Before proving this result, let's see a lemma first.

    Lemma 4. For each argument $ A $, $ \alpha(A) = \mathcal{A}(A) $ or, there is an argument $ B $, which attacks $ A $, such that $ \alpha(A)+\alpha(B) = 1 $.

    Proof. See Appendix C.

    Theorem 7. Denote a fuzzy set $ E $ as $ E(A) = \alpha(A), \forall A\in Args $. Then, when considering $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $ as a GFAF, $ E $ is a preferred/stableextension.

    Proof. If $ B $ attacks $ A $, then $ E(A)+E(B)\leq1 $. That is, $ E $ is conflict-free.

    By Lemma 4, it sufficiently attacks all the arguments in $ \mathcal{A} $ out of $ E $.

    Then it is a stable extension. Thus a preferred extension.

    From the above theorem and statement, we can show that the fuzzy reinstatement labelling is a preferred semantics extension of GFAF. And thus our algorithm can also be used to calculate the preferred semantics of GFAF.

    Fuzzy AFs deal with the uncertain arguments and/or attacks caused by incompleteness, ambiguity, vagueness, etc. The basic method of studying fuzzy semantics is to restore the initial ambiguity and establish fuzzy extensions, such as [9,11,14,15]. In recent years, these achievements have been developed in various ways. For example, [34] extended the extension method by combining the ranking method. [35] considers the inverse problem for gradual semantics: Given an AF and a desired argument ranking, whether there exist initial weights such that a particular semantics produces the given ranking. [36] explores the AFs with support in the labelling approach, and introduces a polynomial-time algorithm to execute it. [37] redefines the argumentative process and characterises graded entailment of arguments through a label-based framework. Unlike these works, this paper does not introduce any new semantics. On the contrary, an optimized algorithm for the semantics $ FRL $ is proposed.

    In the previous literature, the decomposition of AFs is usually used to reduce the computational complexity of argument acceptance. For instance, [24] first provided the SCC-decomposed scheme for Dung's AFs. [38] introduced a decomposition in the context of dynamics AFs, while [39] exploited a tree-based decomposition. [40,41] proposed a division-based method based on the directionality principle and the SCC-recursiveness principle. [25] investigated an SCC-recursive meta-algorithm based on some topology-related properties. In this paper, we have implemented a simple SCC-recursive decomposition on fuzzy AF to reduce the computational complexity of $ FRL $.

    This work develops the calculation of $ FRL $ in two aspects: Firstly, the new algorithm directly provides an exact value of the limits of the algorithm $ FLAlg $ for simple fuzzy AFs (including trees, odd cycles and even cycles). Since the new algorithm avoids the infinite approximation process in $ FLAlg $, its calculation complexity depends only on the number of the arguments and the structure of the AFs. But it has nothing to do with accuracy. Secondly, this paper modifies the SCC method [24] to calculate the fuzzy semantics $ FRL $. The results show that this decomposition method is not only suitable for regular AFs, but also suitable for fuzzy AFs, and it may be applied to other quantitative AFs.

    There are also some limitations in our method. For the complicated cycles, the exact limit of the $ FLAlg $ has not been put forward. This kind of subframe is still calculated by $ FLAlg $. Therefore, the new algorithm can only partly solve the infinite approximation process. Especially, for the fuzzy AFs, where most elements are in complicated subframes, this method is not obviously better than the $ FLAlg $.

    In this paper, we explored the semantics of an uncertain argumentation system---fuzzy AF. We focused on the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of fuzzy AFs. And we provide an efficient algorithm for fuzzy reinstatement labelling. It should be noted that the results of our algorithm are approximate to, but not equal to, the outcomes of $ FLAlg $. The main contributions of this paper are listed as follows:

    ● We provided some results to directly calculate the exact result of the limits of $ FLAlg $ for simple fuzzy AFs, like the trees, the odd cycles, and the even cycles.

    ● We provided a SCC decomposed scheme for fuzzy AF. By this scheme, the semantics of fuzzy AFs can be calculated separately on their SCCs sub-frameworks.

    ● We provided an effective algorithm for calculating the fuzzy reinstatement labelling in fuzzy AFs. The more SCCs in fuzzy AFs (especially simple nodes and simple circles), the higher the efficiency of the algorithm. The more SCCs (especially simple nodes and simple circles) in fuzzy AFs, the more efficient the algorithm is. And it is also applicable to the preferred semantics of GFAF.

    In the future, the SCC decomposition can be applied to other argumentation frameworks, including qualitative argumentation frameworks and quantitative argumentation frameworks, such as GFAF, Janssen's fuzzy AF, and weighted AF. And more topological properties will be investigated for the AFs.

    From Eq (2.1), if $ \mathcal{A}(B)\leq1-\mathcal{A}(A) $, Lemma 2 shows $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = \mathcal{A}(B) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-\mathcal{A}(A)\} $.

    Suppose $ \mathcal{A}(B) > 1-\mathcal{A}(A) $. From Eq (2.1), we have

    $ αt+1(B)=12αt(B)+12min{A(B), 1A(A)}=12αt(B)+12(1A(A))=12[12αt1(B)+12min{A(B), 1A(A)}]+12(1A(A))=122αt1(B)+(1122)(1A(A))=...=12t+1α0(B)+(112t+1)(1A(A)).
    $
    (A.1)

    As $ t\rightarrow \infty $, $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = 1-\mathcal{A}(A) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-\mathcal{A}(A)\} $.

    Before the proof of Theorem 2, let's look at Lemma 5.

    Lemma 5. Let $ \{a_t\}_{t = 0, 1, ...}, \{b_t\}_{t = 0, 1, ...} $ be two convergent sequence in [0, 1]. Then the following two formulas are valid:

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\min\{a_t,b_t\} = \min\{\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}(a_t),\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}(b_t)\}, $
    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\max\{a_t,b_t\} = \max\{\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}(a_t),\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}(b_t)\}. $

    Proof. We only prove the first one here, and the second one can also prove the same.

    Let $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(a_t) = a, \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(b_t) = b $.

    If $ a < b $, then as $ a_t $ converges to $ a $ and $ b_t $ converges to $ b $, there is some natural number $ N $, such that $ \forall t > N $, $ a_t < b_t $, i.e. $ \forall t > N, $ $ \min\{a_t, b_t\} = a_t $. Therefore,

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\min\{a_t,b_t\} = \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty} a_t = a = \min\{a,b\}. $

    $ a > b $ is similar to the above.

    Finally, let's consider the case $ a = b $. For any $ \varepsilon > 0 $, there is some natural number $ N $, such that $ \forall t > N $, $ a-\varepsilon < a_t < a+\varepsilon, b-\varepsilon < b_t < b+\varepsilon $, i.e. $ \forall t > N, $ $ \min\{a_t, b_t\}\in(a-\varepsilon, a+\varepsilon) $. It is

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\min\{a_t,b_t\} = a = \min\{a,b\}, $

    which ends the proof.

    Now, let's show the proof of Theorem 2.

    Proof. For convenience, denote $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A) = a $ and $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = b. $

    In Eq 2.1, let $ t $ tend to $ \infty $ on both sides of = , we can get

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_{t+1}(B) = \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{t}(B)+\frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(B),\ 1-\max\limits_{A\colon A\rightarrow B}\alpha_t(A)\}). $

    Since $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = b $, $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A) = a $ and $ \mathcal{A}(B) $ converges to itself, as a constant sequence. By Lemma 5, we have

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_{t+1}(B) = \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{t}(B) + \frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(B),\ 1-\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A)\}), $

    which means $ b = \frac{1}{2}b+\frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-a\} $, i.e. $ b = \min\{\mathcal{A}(B), 1-a)\} $.

    Obviously, $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{i_0-1}) $ is no bigger than $ \max_{j < i_0}\{1-\mathcal{A}(A_j), \mathcal{A}(A_j)\} $. Then

    $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{i_0-1})\leq\mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+\max\limits_{j < i_0}\{1-\mathcal{A}(A_j),\mathcal{A}(A_j)\}. $

    If $ \max_{j < i_0}\{1-\mathcal{A}(A_j), \mathcal{A}(A_j)\} = 1-\mathcal{A}(A_{j_0}) $ for some $ j_0 < i_0 $, we have $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+1-\mathcal{A}(A_{j_0})\leq1 $, because $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})\leq\mathcal{A}(A_{j_0}) $.

    If $ \max_{j < i_0}\{1-\mathcal{A}(A_j), \mathcal{A}(A_j)\} = \mathcal{A}(A_{j_1}) $, for some $ j_1 < i_0 $, we have $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+\mathcal{A}(A_{j_1}) = \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+1-(1-\mathcal{A}(A_{j_1}))\leq1 $, because $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})\leq1-\mathcal{A}(A_{j_1}) $.

    Therefore, in both cases, we have

    $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{i_0-1})\leq\mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})+\max\limits_{j < i_0}\{1-\mathcal{A}(A_j),\mathcal{A}(A_j)\}\leq1, $

    i.e. $ \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0})\leq1-\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{i_0-1}) $.

    By Theorem 2, $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{i_0}) = \mathcal{A}(A_{i_0}) $ is valid.

    Let's first look at Lemma 6.

    Lemma 6. Suppose part of an AF $ \langle\mathcal{A}, \rightarrow \rangle $ is in the form

    $ ...\rightarrow A\rightarrow C\leftarrow B\leftarrow..., $

    with $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A) = a $ and $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B) = b $. If there are no more arguments in $ Args $ attacking $ C $, then the limit of $ \alpha_t(C) $ equals to the minimum of $ \mathcal{A}(C) $, $ 1-a $ and $ 1-b $, i.e.

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(C) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(C),1-\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A),1-\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B)\}. $

    Proof. For convenience, suppose $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(C) = c. $

    Let $ t $ tend to $ \infty $ on both sides of "=" in Eq (2.1),

    $ limtαt+1(C)=limt(12αt(C)+12min{A(C), 1max{αt(A),αt(B)}}).
    $
    (A.2)

    By Lemma 5, we get

    $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_{t+1}(C) = \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{t}(C) +\frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(C),\ 1-\max\{\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A),\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(B)\}\}. $

    Therefore, $ c = \frac{1}{2}c+\frac{1}{2}\min\{\mathcal{A}(C), \min\{1-a, 1-b\}\} $. It equals $ c = \min\{\mathcal{A}(C), 1-a, 1-b\} $.

    According to Lemma 6, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of nodes attacked by multiple arguments can be calculated.

    Theorem 3 can be proven the same as Lemma 6. Together with Theorem 2, the fuzzy reinstatement labelling of any fuzzy AFs without cycles can be calculated.

    (1) It's only necessary to show $ a_1 = \alpha(A_1) = \mathcal{A}(A_1) $.

    If $ a_1 < a = \mathcal{A}(A_1) < 0.5 $, then from Theorem 2, we have $ a_2 = \min\{1-a_1, \cal{A}(A_2)\} $. Because $ a_1 < a < 0.5 $ and $ a\leq \cal{A}(A_2) $, we have $ a_2\geq a $.

    Then $ a_3 = \min\{1-a_2, \mathcal{A}(A_3)\}\leq 1-a $. Following, we can get for all odd $ i $, $ a_i\leq 1-a $ and for all even $ i $, $ a_i\geq a $.

    Particularly, $ n $ is odd and $ a_n\leq 1-a $. By Theorem 2, we have $ a_1\geq 1-a_n\geq 1-(1-a) = a $. Contradiction.

    From the fact that $ a_1\leq\mathcal{A}(A_1) $, we have $ a_1 = \mathcal{A}(A_1) $. Following, all the other limits can be calculated by Theorem 2 step by step.

    (2) If $ a_1 < 0.5 $, we can get $ a_2 = \min\{1-a_1, \mathcal{A}(A_2)\}\geq 0.5 $ by Theorem 2. Following, $ a_3\leq 0.5 $, $ a_4\geq 0.5 $, ..., $ a_n\leq 0.5 $. Next, we can get $ a_1\geq 0.5 $. Contradiction. Hence, $ a_1\geq 0.5 $.

    Similarly, we have $ a_i\geq 0.5 $ for all $ i\in\{1, 2, ..., n\} $. It follows that $ 1-a_i\leq\mathcal{A}(A_i) $, for all $ i = 1, 2, ..., n $.

    Therefore, for $ i = 1, 2, ..., n-1 $, $ a_{i+1} = \min\{\mathcal{A}(A_i), 1-a_i\} = 1-a_i $; and $ a_1 = 1-a_n $. Because $ n $ is odd, the unique solution is $ a_1 = a_2 = ... = a_n = 0.5 $.

    (1) It is only necessary to show that $ \alpha(A_1) = \mathcal{A}(A_1) $.

    From $ a_{2i_0}\leq \mathcal{A}(A_{2i_0}) = m_2 $, we have $ 1-a_{2i_0}\geq 1-m_2\geq m_1 $. Together with $ \mathcal{A}(A_{2i_0+1})\}\geq m_1 $, we get $ a_{2i_0+1} = \min\{1-a_{2i_0}, \mathcal{A}(A_{2i_0+1})\}\geq m_1 $. Next, we can get $ a_{2i_0+2} = \min\{1-a_{2i_0+1}, \mathcal{A}(A_{2i_0+2})\}\leq 1-m_1 $. Similarly, for all $ i\geq i_0 $, $ a_{2i}\leq 1-m_1 $. Particularly, $ a_{2n}\leq 1-m_1 $.

    By Theorem 2, we have $ a_1 = \min\{1-a_{2n}, \mathcal{A}(A_1)\} = m_1 $.

    (2) It can be obtained by the following four lemmas, i.e. Lemmas 7–10.

    Before proving the case (2), let's show some facts.

    Lemma 7. There exists some natural number $ N\in\mathbb{N} $, such that $ \forall t\geq N $, $ \alpha_t(A_{2i+1})\in(1-m_2, m_1) $, and $ \alpha_t(A_{2i})\in(1-m_1, m_2) $, $ \forall i = 0, 1, ..., n-1 $.

    Proof. Because $ m_1+m_2 > 1 $, we have $ 1-m_1 < m_2\leq \mathcal{A}(A_{2i}) $ and $ 1-m_2 < m_1\leq \mathcal{A}(A_{2i-1}) $, for all $ i = 1, 2, ..., n $. It just needs to show that, $ \forall i = 0, 1, ..., n-1 $

    $ \\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{2i+1})\in(1-m_2,m_1) \;{\rm{ and }}\; \\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{2i})\in(1-m_1,m_2). $

    Obviously, the limits are in $ [1-m_2, m_1] \; {\rm{ and }}\; [1-m_1, m_2]. $ The rest is to show $ lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{2i+1})\neq m_1 \; {\rm{ and }}\; lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{2i})\neq m_2. $

    If not, suppose $ lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{2i+1}) = m_1 $, then $ lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\alpha_t(A_{2i}) = 1- m_1. $ Given another $ AF' = (\mathcal{A'}, \rightarrow) $, with the same arguments and attack relations of $ AF $. But the initial value of $ A_k, k = 0, 1, ..., 2n-1, $ is $ \mathcal{A'}(A_k) = \mathcal{A}(A_{k-1}) $ (for simplicity, we denote $ A_{-1} = A_{2n-1} $, and the same goes for the rest of the paper). Consequently, the value of $ \alpha(A_{2i+1}) $ should be $ m_2 $, which does not equal to $ 1-m_1 $. Contradiction.

    Lemma 8. There is some natural number $ N\in\mathbb{N} $, such that

    $ \forall t\geq N, \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{2n-1}\alpha_t(A_k) = n. $

    Proof. By Lemma 7, there is some $ t_0\in\mathbb{N} $, such that $ \forall i = 0, 1, ..., n-1 $, $ \alpha_{t_0}(A_{2i+1})+m_2 > 1 $, and $ \alpha_{t_0}(A_{2i})+m_1 > 1 $. It follows that for all $ i = 0, 1, ..., n-1 $,

    $ αt0+1(A2i+1)=12αt0(A2i+1)+12(1αt0(A2i)),αt0+1(A2i)=12αt0(A2i)+12(1αt0(A2i1)).
    $
    (A.3)

    Sum both sides of both equations for all $ i = 0, 1, ..., n-1 $, we can obtain

    $ \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{2n-1}\alpha_t(A_k) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n-1}(\alpha_t(A_{2i})+\alpha_t(A_{2i+1})) = n. $

    Let $ N = t_0+1 $, the proof ends.

    Lemma 9. Let $ N\in \mathbb{N} $ such that $ \forall t\geq N, \sum_{k = 0}^{2n-1}\alpha_t(A_k) = n. $

    And suppose

    $ x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1}\alpha_N(A_{2k})/n\; \mathit{and}\; y = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1}\alpha_N(A_{2k+1})/n . $

    Then for all $ t\geq N $,

    $ x = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n-1}\alpha_t(A_{2k})/n \mathit{\;and\;} y = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n-1}\alpha_t(A_{2k+1})/n. $

    Proof. From Lemma 8, clear for $ t = N $. And by summing both sides of the Eqs A.3 separately, we can get that for $ t+1 $ the results hold.

    Lemma 10. Let $ N\in \mathbb{N} $ such that $ \forall t\geq N, \sum_{k = 0}^{2n-1}\alpha_t(A_k) = n. $ Then for all $ t\geq N $, $ \exists i_{1t}, i_{2t}, j_{1t}, j_{2t} $, such that $ \alpha_t(A_{2i_{1t}})\leq x $, $ \alpha_t(A_{2i_{2t}})\geq x $, $ \alpha_t(A_{2j_{1t}+1})\leq y $ and $ \alpha_t(A_{2j_{2t}+1})\geq y $.

    Proof. Obvious from Lemma 9.

    The proof of Theorem 5 is clear by the above lemmas and the first part of Theorem 5.

    We only need to prove that the combination labelling $ \alpha $ satisfies the equation in Definition 3. Namely for each argument $ A $,

    $ \alpha(A) = \min\{\mathcal{A}(A),1-\max\limits_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B)\}. $

    If $ A\in S_i = SCC_i $ and $ \alpha(A)\neq\mathcal{A}(A) $, then we only need to prove that $ \alpha(A) = 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) $. From that $ \alpha_1 $, $ \alpha_2 $, $ \alpha_3 $, ..., $ \alpha_n $ is a fuzzy reinstatement labelling of these sub-frameworks respectively and $ \alpha $ is a combination labelling, we have that $ \alpha(A) = \alpha_i(A) = \min\{RP_{S_i}(A), 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B)\} $. If $ \alpha_i(A) = 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) $, then the prove is complete. Otherwise, if $ \alpha_i(A) = RP_{S_i}(A) $, then from Definition 8, $ \alpha_i(A) = RP_{S_i}(A) = min\{\mathcal{A}(A), 1-DP_{S_i}(A)\} $. Since $ \alpha_i(A) = \alpha(A)\neq \mathcal{A}(A) $, we have $ \alpha(A) = \alpha_i(A) = 1-DP_{S_i}(A) $. Again utilizing Definition 8, $ DP_{S_i} = \{(A, a)\mid a = \max_{B:B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) \; {\rm{ where }}\; B\in sccparents(S_i)\} $ and thus $ \alpha(A) = \alpha_i(A) = 1-DP_{S_i}(A) = 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) $. As a result, $ \alpha(A) = 1-\max_{B\colon B\rightarrow A}\alpha(B) $. The proof is complete.

    If not, i.e. $ \alpha(A) < \mathcal{A}(A) $ and for any $ B $, which attacks $ A $, $ \alpha(A)+\alpha(B) < 1 $. Let's deduce some contradictions.

    Denote $ b = \max\{\alpha(B)\colon B\; attacks\; A\} $, and

    $ \epsilon = (\min\{1-b,\mathcal{A}(A)\}-\alpha(A))/4. $

    Because $ \alpha_t(A), t = 1, 2, ... $ is convergent to $ \alpha(A) $, for all arguments $ A $, there is a natural number $ N $, such that $ \forall t > N $, $ \alpha_t(A) > \alpha(A)-\epsilon $ and $ \alpha_t(B) < b+\epsilon $, for any $ B $ attacks $ A $. Then,

    $ αt+1(A)=αt(A)/2+min{1αt(B),A(A)}/2(α(A)+ϵ)/2+min{1bϵ,A(A)}/2
    $
    (14.1)

    By the definition of $ \epsilon $, $ \min\{1-b-\epsilon, \mathcal{A}(A)\} > \alpha(A)+3\epsilon $, which means

    $ \alpha_{t+1}(A) > (\alpha(A)+\epsilon)/2+(\alpha(A)+3\epsilon)/2 = \alpha(A)+\epsilon, $

    contradiction.

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    [1] World Health Organization, The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva 27, Switzerland, World Health Organization, 2008. Available from: http: //www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/
    [2] Ferri CP, Prince M, Brayne C, et al. (2005) Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 366: 2112-2117. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67889-0
    [3] Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E, et al. (2013) The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement 9: 63-75.e62. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.11.007
    [4] Brookmeyer R, Johnson E, Ziegler-Graham K, et al. (2007) Forecasting the global burden of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 3: 186-191. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.04.381
    [5] Hardy JA, Higgins GA (1992) Alzheimer's disease: the amyloid cascade hypothesis. Science 256: 184-185. doi: 10.1126/science.1566067
    [6] Hardy J, Selkoe DJ (2002) The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease: progress and problems on the road to therapeutics. Science 297: 353-356. doi: 10.1126/science.1072994
    [7] Povova J, Ambroz P, Bar M, et al. (2012) Epidemiological of and risk factors for Alzheimer's disease: a review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 156: 108-114. doi: 10.5507/bp.2012.055
    [8] Lautenschlager NT, Cupples LA, Rao VS, et al. (1996) Risk of dementia among relatives of Alzheimer's disease patients in the MIRAGE study: What is in store for the oldest old? Neurology 46: 641-650. doi: 10.1212/WNL.46.3.641
    [9] Raiha I, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M, et al. (1996) Alzheimer's disease in Finnish twins. Lancet 347: 573-578. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91272-6
    [10] Gatz M, Reynolds CA, Fratiglioni L, et al. (2006) Role of genes and environments for explaining Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry 63: 168-174. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.2.168
    [11] Bergem AL, Engedal K, Kringlen E (1997) The role of heredity in late-onset Alzheimer disease and vascular dementia. A twin study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 54: 264-270.
    [12] Gatz M, Pedersen NL, Berg S, et al. (1997) Heritability for Alzheimer's disease: the study of dementia in Swedish twins. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 52: M117-125.
    [13] Coon KD, Myers AJ, Craig DW, et al. (2007) A high-density whole-genome association study reveals that APOE is the major susceptibility gene for sporadic late-onset Alzheimer's disease. J Clin Psychiatry 68: 613-618. doi: 10.4088/JCP.v68n0419
    [14] Couzin J (2008) Genetics. Once shunned, test for Alzheimer's risk headed to market. Science 319: 1022-1023.
    [15] Holtzman DM, Herz J, Bu G (2012) Apolipoprotein E and apolipoprotein E receptors: normal biology and roles in Alzheimer disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2: a006312.
    [16] Farrer LA, Cupples LA, Haines JL, et al. (1997) Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium. JAMA 278: 1349-1356.
    [17] Kim KW, Jhoo JH, Lee KU, et al. (1999) Association between apolipoprotein E polymorphism and Alzheimer's disease in Koreans. Neurosci Lett 277: 145-148. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3940(99)00867-8
    [18] Lambert JC, Amouyel P (2011) Genetics of Alzheimer's disease: new evidences for an old hypothesis? Curr Opin Genet Dev 21: 295-301. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2011.02.002
    [19] Bertram L, McQueen MB, Mullin K, et al. (2007) Systematic meta-analyses of Alzheimer disease genetic association studies: the AlzGene database. Nat Genet 39: 17-23. doi: 10.1038/ng1934
    [20] Rogaeva E, Meng Y, Lee JH, et al. (2007) The neuronal sortilin-related receptor SORL1 is genetically associated with Alzheimer disease. Nat Genet 39: 168-177. doi: 10.1038/ng1943
    [21] Reitz C, Cheng R, Rogaeva E, et al. (2011) Meta-analysis of the association between variants in SORL1 and Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 68: 99-106. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.346
    [22] Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (2007) Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447: 661-678. doi: 10.1038/nature05911
    [23] Chouraki V, Seshadri S (2014) Genetics of Alzheimer's disease. Adv Genet 87: 245-294. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800149-3.00005-6
    [24] Jonsson T, Stefansson H, Steinberg S, et al. (2013) Variant of TREM2 associated with the risk of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 368: 107-116. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1211103
    [25] Cruchaga C, Karch CM, Jin SC, et al. (2014) Rare coding variants in the phospholipase D3 gene confer risk for Alzheimer's disease. Nature 505: 550-554.
    [26] Graeber MB, Streit WJ (2010) Microglia: biology and pathology. Acta Neuropathol 119: 89-105. doi: 10.1007/s00401-009-0622-0
    [27] Ransohoff RM, Perry VH (2009) Microglial physiology: unique stimuli, specialized responses. Annu Rev Immunol 27: 119-145. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.021908.132528
    [28] Streit WJ (2002) Microglia as neuroprotective, immunocompetent cells of the CNS. Glia 40: 133-139. doi: 10.1002/glia.10154
    [29] Dickson DW, Farlo J, Davies P, et al. (1988) Alzheimer's disease. A double-labeling immunohistochemical study of senile plaques. Am J Pathol 132: 86-101.
    [30] Guillot-Sestier MV, Town T (2013) Innate immunity in Alzheimer's disease: a complex affair. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 12: 593-607. doi: 10.2174/1871527311312050008
    [31] Coraci IS, Husemann J, Berman JW, et al. (2002) CD36, a class B scavenger receptor, is expressed on microglia in Alzheimer's disease brains and can mediate production of reactive oxygen species in response to beta-amyloid fibrils. Am J Pathol 160: 101-112. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64354-4
    [32] Bamberger ME, Harris ME, McDonald DR, et al. (2003) A cell surface receptor complex for fibrillar beta-amyloid mediates microglial activation. J Neurosci 23: 2665-2674.
    [33] Frenkel D, Wilkinson K, Zhao L, et al. (2013) Scara1 deficiency impairs clearance of soluble amyloid-beta by mononuclear phagocytes and accelerates Alzheimer's-like disease progression. Nat Commun 4: 2030.
    [34] Walter S, Letiembre M, Liu Y, et al. (2007) Role of the toll-like receptor 4 in neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease. Cell Physiol Biochem 20: 947-956. doi: 10.1159/000110455
    [35] Scholtzova H, Chianchiano P, Pan J, et al. (2014) Amyloid beta and Tau Alzheimer's disease related pathology is reduced by Toll-like receptor 9 stimulation. Acta Neuropathol Commun 2: 101.
    [36] Wang LZ, Tian Y, Yu JT, et al. (2011) Association between late-onset Alzheimer's disease and microsatellite polymorphisms in intron II of the human toll-like receptor 2 gene. Neurosci Lett 489: 164-167. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.12.008
    [37] Liu Y, Walter S, Stagi M, et al. (2005) LPS receptor (CD14): a receptor for phagocytosis of Alzheimer's amyloid peptide. Brain 128: 1778-1789. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh531
    [38] Prokop S, Miller KR, Heppner FL (2013) Microglia actions in Alzheimer's disease. Acta Neuropathol 126: 461-477. doi: 10.1007/s00401-013-1182-x
    [39] Lee CY, Landreth GE (2010) The role of microglia in amyloid clearance from the AD brain. J Neural Transm 117: 949-960. doi: 10.1007/s00702-010-0433-4
    [40] Stewart CR, Stuart LM, Wilkinson K, et al. (2010) CD36 ligands promote sterile inflammation through assembly of a Toll-like receptor 4 and 6 heterodimer. Nat Immunol 11: 155-161. doi: 10.1038/ni.1836
    [41] Town T, Nikolic V, Tan J (2005) The microglial ""activation"" continuum: from innate to adaptive responses. J Neuroinflammation 2: 24. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-2-24
    [42] Varnum MM, Ikezu T (2012) The classification of microglial activation phenotypes on neurodegeneration and regeneration in Alzheimer's disease brain. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 60: 251-266. doi: 10.1007/s00005-012-0181-2
    [43] Mantovani A, Sozzani S, Locati M, et al. (2002) Macrophage polarization: tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes. Trends Immunol 23: 549-555. doi: 10.1016/S1471-4906(02)02302-5
    [44] Goerdt S, Orfanos CE (1999) Other functions, other genes: alternative activation of antigen-presenting cells. Immunity 10: 137-142. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80014-X
    [45] Jimenez S, Baglietto-Vargas D, Caballero C, et al. (2008) Inflammatory response in the hippocampus of PS1M146L/APP751SL mouse model of Alzheimer's disease: age-dependent switch in the microglial phenotype from alternative to classic. J Neurosci 28: 11650-11661. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3024-08.2008
    [46] Hoozemans JJ, Veerhuis R, Rozemuller JM, et al. (2006) Neuroinflammation and regeneration in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease pathology. Int J Dev Neurosci 24: 157-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2005.11.001
    [47] Martinez FO, Gordon S (2014) The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep 6: 13.
    [48] Simard AR, Soulet D, Gowing G, et al. (2006) Bone marrow-derived microglia play a critical role in restricting senile plaque formation in Alzheimer's disease. Neuron 49: 489-502. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.022
    [49] Mandrekar S, Jiang Q, Lee CY, et al. (2009) Microglia mediate the clearance of soluble Abeta through fluid phase macropinocytosis. J Neurosci 29: 4252-4262. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5572-08.2009
    [50] Yuyama K, Sun H, Mitsutake S, et al. (2012) Sphingolipid-modulated exosome secretion promotes clearance of amyloid-beta by microglia. J Biol Chem 287: 10977-10989. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.324616
    [51] Maier M, Peng Y, Jiang L, et al. (2008) Complement C3 deficiency leads to accelerated amyloid beta plaque deposition and neurodegeneration and modulation of the microglia/macrophage phenotype in amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice. J Neurosci 28: 6333-6341. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0829-08.2008
    [52] Webster S, Lue LF, Brachova L, et al. (1997) Molecular and cellular characterization of the membrane attack complex, C5b-9, in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 18: 415-421. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(97)00042-0
    [53] Flanary BE, Streit WJ (2004) Progressive telomere shortening occurs in cultured rat microglia, but not astrocytes. Glia 45: 75-88. doi: 10.1002/glia.10301
    [54] Griffin WS, Sheng JG, Royston MC, et al. (1998) Glial-neuronal interactions in Alzheimer's disease: the potential role of a 'cytokine cycle' in disease progression. Brain Pathol 8: 65-72.
    [55] Griffin WS, Stanley LC, Ling C, et al. (1989) Brain interleukin 1 and S-100 immunoreactivity are elevated in Down syndrome and Alzheimer disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86: 7611-7615. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.19.7611
    [56] Barger SW, Harmon AD (1997) Microglial activation by Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein and modulation by apolipoprotein E. Nature 388: 878-881. doi: 10.1038/42257
    [57] Li Y, Liu L, Barger SW, et al. (2003) Interleukin-1 mediates pathological effects of microglia on tau phosphorylation and on synaptophysin synthesis in cortical neurons through a p38-MAPK pathway. J Neurosci 23: 1605-1611.
    [58] Li Y, Liu L, Kang J, et al. (2000) Neuronal-glial interactions mediated by interleukin-1 enhance neuronal acetylcholinesterase activity and mRNA expression. J Neurosci 20: 149-155.
    [59] Sheng JG, Ito K, Skinner RD, et al. (1996) In vivo and in vitro evidence supporting a role for the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1 as a driving force in Alzheimer pathogenesis. Neurobiol Aging 17: 761-766. doi: 10.1016/0197-4580(96)00104-2
    [60] Yamanaka M, Ishikawa T, Griep A, et al. (2012) PPARgamma/RXRalpha-induced and CD36-mediated microglial amyloid-beta phagocytosis results in cognitive improvement in amyloid precursor protein/presenilin 1 mice. J Neurosci 32: 17321-17331. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1569-12.2012
    [61] Tarkowski E, Andreasen N, Tarkowski A, et al. (2003) Intrathecal inflammation precedes development of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74: 1200-1205. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.74.9.1200
    [62] Sheng JG, Jones RA, Zhou XQ, et al. (2001) Interleukin-1 promotion of MAPK-p38 overexpression in experimental animals and in Alzheimer's disease: potential significance for tau protein phosphorylation. Neurochem Int 39: 341-348. doi: 10.1016/S0197-0186(01)00041-9
    [63] Munoz L, Ralay Ranaivo H, Roy SM, et al. (2007) A novel p38 alpha MAPK inhibitor suppresses brain proinflammatory cytokine up-regulation and attenuates synaptic dysfunction and behavioral deficits in an Alzheimer's disease mouse model. J Neuroinflammation 4: 21. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-4-21
    [64] Yoshiyama Y, Higuchi M, Zhang B, et al. (2007) Synapse loss and microglial activation precede tangles in a P301S tauopathy mouse model. Neuron 53: 337-351. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.01.010
    [65] Butterfield DA, Swomley AM, Sultana R (2013) Amyloid beta-peptide (1-42)-induced oxidative stress in Alzheimer disease: importance in disease pathogenesis and progression. Antioxid Redox Signal 19: 823-835. doi: 10.1089/ars.2012.5027
    [66] Thiabaud G, Pizzocaro S, Garcia-Serres R, et al. (2013) Heme binding induces dimerization and nitration of truncated beta-amyloid peptide Abeta16 under oxidative stress. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 52: 8041-8044. doi: 10.1002/anie.201302989
    [67] Nathan C, Calingasan N, Nezezon J, et al. (2005) Protection from Alzheimer's-like disease in the mouse by genetic ablation of inducible nitric oxide synthase. J Exp Med 202: 1163-1169. doi: 10.1084/jem.20051529
    [68] Aboud O, Parcon PA, DeWall KM, et al. (2015) Aging, Alzheimer's, and APOE genotype influence the expression and neuronal distribution patterns of microtubule motor protein dynactin-P50. Front Cell Neurosci 9: 103.
    [69] Hickman SE, Allison EK, El Khoury J (2008) Microglial dysfunction and defective beta-amyloid clearance pathways in aging Alzheimer's disease mice. J Neurosci 28: 8354-8360. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0616-08.2008
    [70] Lai AY, McLaurin J (2012) Clearance of amyloid-beta peptides by microglia and macrophages: the issue of what, when and where. Future Neurol 7: 165-176. doi: 10.2217/fnl.12.6
    [71] Hawkes CA, McLaurin J (2009) Selective targeting of perivascular macrophages for clearance of beta-amyloid in cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 1261-1266. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0805453106
    [72] Mildner A, Schlevogt B, Kierdorf K, et al. (2011) Distinct and non-redundant roles of microglia and myeloid subsets in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 31: 11159-11171. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6209-10.2011
    [73] Stalder AK, Ermini F, Bondolfi L, et al. (2005) Invasion of hematopoietic cells into the brain of amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice. J Neurosci 25: 11125-11132. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2545-05.2005
    [74] Malm TM, Koistinaho M, Parepalo M, et al. (2005) Bone-marrow-derived cells contribute to the recruitment of microglial cells in response to beta-amyloid deposition in APP/PS1 double transgenic Alzheimer mice. Neurobiol Dis 18: 134-142 doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2004.09.009
    [75] Fiala M, Liu PT, Espinosa-Jeffrey A, et al. (2007) Innate immunity and transcription of MGAT-III and Toll-like receptors in Alzheimer's disease patients are improved by bisdemethoxycurcumin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 12849-12854. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701267104
    [76] Mildner A, Schmidt H, Nitsche M, et al. (2007) Microglia in the adult brain arise from Ly-6ChiCCR2+ monocytes only under defined host conditions. Nat Neurosci 10: 1544-1553. doi: 10.1038/nn2015
    [77] Ajami B, Bennett JL, Krieger C, et al. (2007) Local self-renewal can sustain CNS microglia maintenance and function throughout adult life. Nat Neurosci 10: 1538-1543. doi: 10.1038/nn2014
    [78] Heppner FL, Ransohoff RM, Becher B (2015) Immune attack: the role of inflammation in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 16: 358-372. doi: 10.1038/nrn3880
    [79] Togo T, Akiyama H, Iseki E, et al. (2002) Occurrence of T cells in the brain of Alzheimer's disease and other neurological diseases. J Neuroimmunol 124: 83-92. doi: 10.1016/S0165-5728(01)00496-9
    [80] Town T, Tan J, Flavell RA, et al. (2005) T-cells in Alzheimer's disease. Neuromolecular Med 7: 255-264. doi: 10.1385/NMM:7:3:255
    [81] Hohsfield LA, Humpel C (2015) Migration of blood cells to beta-amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's disease. Exp Gerontol 65: 8-15. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2015.03.002
    [82] Fisher Y, Nemirovsky A, Baron R, et al. (2011) Dendritic cells regulate amyloid-beta-specific T-cell entry into the brain: the role of perivascular amyloid-beta. J Alzheimers Dis 27: 99-111.
    [83] Zhang J, Ke KF, Liu Z, et al. (2013) Th17 cell-mediated neuroinflammation is involved in neurodegeneration of abeta1-42-induced Alzheimer's disease model rats. PLoS One 8: e75786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075786
    [84] Gonzalez H, Pacheco R (2014) T-cell-mediated regulation of neuroinflammation involved in neurodegenerative diseases. J Neuroinflammation 11: 201. doi: 10.1186/s12974-014-0201-8
    [85] Browne TC, McQuillan K, McManus RM, et al. (2013) IFN-gamma Production by amyloid beta-specific Th1 cells promotes microglial activation and increases plaque burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Immunol 190: 2241-2251. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1200947
    [86] Fisher Y, Strominger I, Biton S, et al. (2014) Th1 polarization of T cells injected into the cerebrospinal fluid induces brain immunosurveillance. J Immunol 192: 92-102. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1301707
    [87] Richartz-Salzburger E, Batra A, Stransky E, et al. (2007) Altered lymphocyte distribution in Alzheimer's disease. J Psychiatr Res 41: 174-178. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.01.010
    [88] Bonotis K, Krikki E, Holeva V, et al. (2008) Systemic immune aberrations in Alzheimer's disease patients. J Neuroimmunol 193: 183-187. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2007.10.020
    [89] Bulati M, Buffa S, Martorana A, et al. (2015) Double negative (IgG+IgD-CD27-) B cells are increased in a cohort of moderate-severe Alzheimer's disease patients and show a pro-inflammatory trafficking receptor phenotype. J Alzheimers Dis 44: 1241-1251.
    [90] Speciale L, Calabrese E, Saresella M, et al. (2007) Lymphocyte subset patterns and cytokine production in Alzheimer's disease patients. Neurobiol Aging 28: 1163-1169. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.05.020
    [91] Xiao M, Hu G (2014) Involvement of aquaporin 4 in astrocyte function and neuropsychiatric disorders. CNS Neurosci Ther 20: 385-390. doi: 10.1111/cns.12267
    [92] Grolla AA, Fakhfouri G, Balzaretti G, et al. (2013) Abeta leads to Ca(2)(+) signaling alterations and transcriptional changes in glial cells. Neurobiol Aging 34: 511-522. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.05.005
    [93] Kato S, Gondo T, Hoshii Y, et al. (1998) Confocal observation of senile plaques in Alzheimer's disease: senile plaque morphology and relationship between senile plaques and astrocytes. Pathol Int 48: 332-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1827.1998.tb03915.x
    [94] Kulijewicz-Nawrot M, Verkhratsky A, Chvatal A, et al. (2012) Astrocytic cytoskeletal atrophy in the medial prefrontal cortex of a triple transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Anat 221: 252-262. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01536.x
    [95] Heneka MT, O'Banion MK, Terwel D, et al. (2010) Neuroinflammatory processes in Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm 117: 919-947. doi: 10.1007/s00702-010-0438-z
    [96] Avila-Munoz E, Arias C (2014) When astrocytes become harmful: functional and inflammatory responses that contribute to Alzheimer's disease. Ageing Res Rev 18: 29-40. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2014.07.004
    [97] Wyss-Coray T, Loike JD, Brionne TC, et al. (2003) Adult mouse astrocytes degrade amyloid-beta in vitro and in situ. Nat Med 9: 453-457. doi: 10.1038/nm838
    [98] Koistinaho M, Lin S, Wu X, et al. (2004) Apolipoprotein E promotes astrocyte colocalization and degradation of deposited amyloid-beta peptides. Nat Med 10: 719-726. doi: 10.1038/nm1058
    [99] Dezsi L, Tuka B, Martos D, et al. (2015) Alzheimer's disease, astrocytes and kynurenines. Curr Alzheimer Res 12: 462-480.
    [100] Chavez-Gutierrez L, Bammens L, Benilova I, et al. (2012) The mechanism of gamma-Secretase dysfunction in familial Alzheimer disease. Embo j 31: 2261-2274. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2012.79
    [101] Suh J, Choi SH, Romano DM, et al. (2013) ADAM10 missense mutations potentiate beta-amyloid accumulation by impairing prodomain chaperone function. Neuron 80: 385-401. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.08.035
    [102] Jun G, Naj AC, Beecham GW, et al. (2010) Meta-analysis confirms CR1, CLU, and PICALM as alzheimer disease risk loci and reveals interactions with APOE genotypes. Arch Neurol 67: 1473-1484. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.201
    [103] Jin C, Liu X, Zhang F, et al. (2013) An updated meta-analysis of the association between SORL1 variants and the risk for sporadic Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis 37: 429-437.
    [104] Li Y, Rowland C, Catanese J, et al. (2008) SORL1 variants and risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Dis 29: 293-296. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2007.09.001
    [105] Xiao Q, Gil SC, Yan P, et al. (2012) Role of phosphatidylinositol clathrin assembly lymphoid-myeloid leukemia (PICALM) in intracellular amyloid precursor protein (APP) processing and amyloid plaque pathogenesis. J Biol Chem 287: 21279-21289. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.338376
    [106] Narayan P, Orte A, Clarke RW, et al. (2012) The extracellular chaperone clusterin sequesters oligomeric forms of the amyloid-beta(1-40) peptide. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19: 79-83.
    [107] Lambert JC, Heath S, Even G, et al. (2009) Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and CR1 associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 41: 1094-1099. doi: 10.1038/ng.439
    [108] Terwel D, Steffensen KR, Verghese PB, et al. (2011) Critical role of astroglial apolipoprotein E and liver X receptor-alpha expression for microglial Abeta phagocytosis. J Neurosci 31: 7049-7059. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6546-10.2011
    [109] Jiang Q, Lee CY, Mandrekar S, et al. (2008) ApoE promotes the proteolytic degradation of Abeta. Neuron 58: 681-693. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.010
    [110] Maezawa I, Maeda N, Montine TJ, et al. (2006) Apolipoprotein E-specific innate immune response in astrocytes from targeted replacement mice. J Neuroinflammation 3: 10. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-3-10
    [111] Maezawa I, Nivison M, Montine KS, et al. (2006) Neurotoxicity from innate immune response is greatest with targeted replacement of E4 allele of apolipoprotein E gene and is mediated by microglial p38MAPK. FASEB J 20: 797-799
    [112] Zhao L, Lin S, Bales KR, et al. (2009) Macrophage-mediated degradation of beta-amyloid via an apolipoprotein E isoform-dependent mechanism. J Neurosci 29: 3603-3612. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5302-08.2009
    [113] Seshadri S, Fitzpatrick AL, Ikram MA, et al. (2010) Genome-wide analysis of genetic loci associated with Alzheimer disease. JAMA 303: 1832-1840
    [114] Naj AC, Jun G, Beecham GW, et al. (2011) Common variants at MS4A4/MS4A6E, CD2AP, CD33 and EPHA1 are associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 43: 436-441. doi: 10.1038/ng.801
    [115] Lambert JC, Ibrahim-Verbaas CA, Harold D, et al. (2013) Meta-analysis of 74,046 individuals identifies 11 new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 45: 1452-1458. doi: 10.1038/ng.2802
    [116] Reitz C (2014) Genetic loci associated with Alzheimer's disease. Future Neurol 9: 119-122 doi: 10.2217/fnl.14.1
    [117] Malik M, Simpson JF, Parikh I, et al. (2013) CD33 Alzheimer's risk-altering polymorphism, CD33 expression, and exon 2 splicing. J Neurosci 33: 13320-13325. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1224-13.2013
    [118] Hollingworth P, Harold D, Sims R, et al. (2011) Common variants at ABCA7, MS4A6A/MS4A4E, EPHA1, CD33 and CD2AP are associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 43: 429-435. doi: 10.1038/ng.803
    [119] Jiang T, Yu JT, Hu N, et al. (2014) CD33 in Alzheimer's disease. Mol Neurobiol 49: 529-535. doi: 10.1007/s12035-013-8536-1
    [120] Bradshaw EM, Chibnik LB, Keenan BT, et al. (2013) CD33 Alzheimer's disease locus: altered monocyte function and amyloid biology. Nat Neurosci 16: 848-850. doi: 10.1038/nn.3435
    [121] Rohn TT (2013) The triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2: ""TREM-ming"" the inflammatory component associated with Alzheimer's disease. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2013: 860959.
    [122] Le Ber I, De Septenville A, Guerreiro R, et al. (2014) Homozygous TREM2 mutation in a family with atypical frontotemporal dementia. Neurobiol Aging 35: 2419.e2423-2415.
    [123] Sasaki A, Kakita A, Yoshida K, et al. (2015) Variable expression of microglial DAP12 and TREM2 genes in Nasu-Hakola disease. Neurogenetics. In press.
    [124] Lu Y, Liu W, Wang X (2015) TREM2 variants and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. In press.
    [125] Ruiz A, Dols-Icardo O, Bullido MJ, et al. (2014) Assessing the role of the TREM2 p.R47H variant as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. Neurobiol Aging 35: 444.e441-444.
    [126] Rajagopalan P, Hibar DP, Thompson PM (2013) TREM2 and neurodegenerative disease. N Engl J Med 369: 1565-1567.
    [127] Strohmeyer R, Ramirez M, Cole GJ, et al. (2002) Association of factor H of the alternative pathway of complement with agrin and complement receptor 3 in the Alzheimer's disease brain. J Neuroimmunol 131: 135-146. doi: 10.1016/S0165-5728(02)00272-2
    [128] Karch CM, Jeng AT, Nowotny P, et al. (2012) Expression of novel Alzheimer's disease risk genes in control and Alzheimer's disease brains. PLoS One 7: e50976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050976
    [129] Brouwers N, Van Cauwenberghe C, Engelborghs S, et al. (2012) Alzheimer risk associated with a copy number variation in the complement receptor 1 increasing C3b/C4b binding sites. Mol Psychiatry 17: 223-233. doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.24
    [130] Rogers J, Li R, Mastroeni D, et al. (2006) Peripheral clearance of amyloid beta peptide by complement C3-dependent adherence to erythrocytes. Neurobiol Aging 27: 1733-1739. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.09.043
    [131] Lue LF, Brachova L, Civin WH, et al. (1996) Inflammation, A beta deposition, and neurofibrillary tangle formation as correlates of Alzheimer's disease neurodegeneration. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 55: 1083-1088. doi: 10.1097/00005072-199655100-00008
    [132] Mahmoudi R, Kisserli A, Novella JL, et al. (2015) Alzheimer's disease is associated with low density of the long CR1 isoform. Neurobiol Aging 36: 1766.e1765-1712.
    [133] Harold D, Abraham R, Hollingworth P, et al. (2009) Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and PICALM associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 41: 1088-1093. doi: 10.1038/ng.440
    [134] Thambisetty M, Simmons A, Velayudhan L, et al. (2010) Association of plasma clusterin concentration with severity, pathology, and progression in Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry 67: 739-748. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.78
    [135] Jones SE, Jomary C (2002) Clusterin. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 34: 427-431. doi: 10.1016/S1357-2725(01)00155-8
    [136] Bell RD, Sagare AP, Friedman AE, et al. (2007) Transport pathways for clearance of human Alzheimer's amyloid beta-peptide and apolipoproteins E and J in the mouse central nervous system. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 27: 909-918.
    [137] Jehle AW, Gardai SJ, Li S, et al. (2006) ATP-binding cassette transporter A7 enhances phagocytosis of apoptotic cells and associated ERK signaling in macrophages. J Cell Biol 174: 547-556. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200601030
    [138] Tanaka N, Abe-Dohmae S, Iwamoto N, et al. (2011) HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors enhance phagocytosis by upregulating ATP-binding cassette transporter A7. Atherosclerosis 217: 407-414. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2011.06.031
    [139] Wildsmith KR, Holley M, Savage JC, et al. (2013) Evidence for impaired amyloid beta clearance in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 5: 33. doi: 10.1186/alzrt187
    [140] Chan SL, Kim WS, Kwok JB, et al. (2008) ATP-binding cassette transporter A7 regulates processing of amyloid precursor protein in vitro. J Neurochem 106: 793-804. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05433.x
    [141] Kim WS, Li H, Ruberu K, et al. (2013) Deletion of Abca7 increases cerebral amyloid-beta accumulation in the J20 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 33: 4387-4394. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4165-12.2013
    [142] Proitsi P, Lee SH, Lunnon K, et al. (2014) Alzheimer's disease susceptibility variants in the MS4A6A gene are associated with altered levels of MS4A6A expression in blood. Neurobiol Aging 35: 279-290. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.08.002
    [143] Zuccolo J, Bau J, Childs SJ, et al. (2010) Phylogenetic analysis of the MS4A and TMEM176 gene families. PLoS One 5: e9369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009369
    [144] Cruse G, Beaven MA, Music SC, et al. (2015) The CD20 homologue MS4A4 directs trafficking of KIT toward clathrin-independent endocytosis pathways and thus regulates receptor signaling and recycling. Mol Biol Cell 26: 1711-1727. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E14-07-1221
    [145] Doyle KP, Quach LN, Sole M (2015) B-lymphocyte-mediated delayed cognitive impairment following stroke. J Neurosci 35: 2133-2145. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4098-14.2015
    [146] Ma J, Yu JT, Tan L (2015) MS4A Cluster in Alzheimer's Disease. Mol Neurobiol 51: 1240-1248. doi: 10.1007/s12035-014-8800-z
    [147] Wang HF, Tan L, Hao XK, et al. (2015) Effect of EPHA1 genetic variation on cerebrospinal fluid and neuroimaging biomarkers in healthy, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease cohorts. J Alzheimers Dis 44: 115-123.
    [148] Gerlai R (2001) Eph receptors and neural plasticity. Nat Rev Neurosci 2: 205-209. doi: 10.1038/35058582
    [149] Gerlai R (2002) EphB and NMDA receptors: components of synaptic plasticity coming together. Trends Neurosci 25: 180-181.
    [150] Kullander K, Klein R (2002) Mechanisms and functions of Eph and ephrin signalling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 3: 475-486. doi: 10.1038/nrm856
    [151] Coulthard MG, Morgan M, Woodruff TM, et al. (2012) Eph/Ephrin signaling in injury and inflammation. Am J Pathol 181: 1493-1503. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.06.043
    [152] Ieguchi K (2015) Eph as a target in inflammation. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets 15: 119-128. doi: 10.2174/1871530315666150316121302
    [153] Sakamoto A, Sugamoto Y, Tokunaga Y, et al. (2011) Expression profiling of the ephrin (EFN) and Eph receptor (EPH) family of genes in atherosclerosis-related human cells. J Int Med Res 39: 522-527. doi: 10.1177/147323001103900220
    [154] Viernes DR, Choi LB, Kerr WG, et al. (2014) Discovery and development of small molecule SHIP phosphatase modulators. Med Res Rev 34: 795-824. doi: 10.1002/med.21305
    [155] Gold MJ, Hughes MR, Antignano F, et al. (2015) Lineage-specific regulation of allergic airway inflammation by the lipid phosphatase Src homology 2 domain-containing inositol 5-phosphatase (SHIP-1). J Allergy Clin Immunol. In press.
    [156] Nowakowska BA, Obersztyn E, Szymanska K, et al. (2010) Severe mental retardation, seizures, and hypotonia due to deletions of MEF2C. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 153b: 1042-1051.
    [157] Xu Z, Yoshida T, Wu L, et al. (2015) Transcription factor MEF2C suppresses endothelial cell inflammation via regulation of NF-kappaB and KLF2. J Cell Physiol 230: 1310-1320. doi: 10.1002/jcp.24870
    [158] Aisen PS, Luddy A, Durner M, et al. (1998) HLA-DR4 influences glial activity in Alzheimer's disease hippocampus. J Neurol Sci 161: 66-69.
    [159] Zota V, Nemirovsky A, Baron R, et al. (2009) HLA-DR alleles in amyloid beta-peptide autoimmunity: a highly immunogenic role for the DRB1*1501 allele. J Immunol 183: 3522-3530. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0900620
    [160] Mansouri L, Messalmani M, Klai S, et al. (2015) Association of HLA-DR/DQ polymorphism with Alzheimer's disease. Am J Med Sci 349: 334-337. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0000000000000416
    [161] Kobrosly R, van Wijngaarden E (2010) Associations between immunologic, inflammatory, and oxidative stress markers with severity of depressive symptoms: an analysis of the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Neurotoxicology 31: 126-133. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2009.10.005
    [162] Na KS, Jung HY, Kim YK (2014) The role of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the neuroinflammation and neurogenesis of schizophrenia. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 48: 277-286. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2012.10.022
    [163] Heneka MT, Carson MJ, El Khoury J, et al. (2015) Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease. Lancet Neurol 14: 388-405. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70016-5
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Lixing Tan, Zhaohui Zhu, Fujun Wang, Jinjin Zhang, Graded labellings for abstract argumentation, 2023, 152, 0888613X, 59, 10.1016/j.ijar.2022.10.009
    2. Jiachao Wu, A Boolean model for conflict-freeness in argumentation frameworks, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 3913, 10.3934/math.2023195
    3. Jiachao Wu, Hengfei Li, Renovation sets and their applications in higher-order argumentation frameworks, 2023, 0955-792X, 10.1093/logcom/exad067
    4. Jiachao Wu, Shuai Tang, Ning Zhou, A credulous semantics of higher-order argumentation frameworks based on credulously accepted attacks, 2025, 0955-792X, 10.1093/logcom/exaf011
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7214) PDF downloads(1395) Cited by(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog