Figure 1.
Location of AWS and manual weather observation equipment at Stamar Paotere Makassar.
Citation: Tara P. Hurst, Caroline Coleman-Vaughan, Indu Patwal, Justin V. McCarthy. Regulated intramembrane proteolysis, innate immunity and therapeutic targets in Alzheimer’s disease[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(2): 138-157. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.2.138
| [1] | Farman Ali Shah, Kamran, Dania Santina, Nabil Mlaiki, Salma Aljawi . Application of a hybrid pseudospectral method to a new two-dimensional multi-term mixed sub-diffusion and wave-diffusion equation of fractional order. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(1): 44-85. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024003 |
| [2] | Rong Huang, Zhifeng Weng . A numerical method based on barycentric interpolation collocation for nonlinear convection-diffusion optimal control problems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(2): 562-580. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023024 |
| [3] | Yaxin Hou, Cao Wen, Yang Liu, Hong Li . A two-grid ADI finite element approximation for a nonlinear distributed-order fractional sub-diffusion equation. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(2): 855-876. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023037 |
| [4] | Narcisa Apreutesei, Vitaly Volpert . Reaction-diffusion waves with nonlinear boundary conditions. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 23-35. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.23 |
| [5] | Min Li, Ju Ming, Tingting Qin, Boya Zhou . Convergence of an energy-preserving finite difference method for the nonlinear coupled space-fractional Klein-Gordon equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(3): 957-981. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023042 |
| [6] | Yinlin Ye, Hongtao Fan, Yajing Li, Ao Huang, Weiheng He . An artificial neural network approach for a class of time-fractional diffusion and diffusion-wave equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(3): 1083-1104. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023047 |
| [7] | Yves Achdou, Victor Perez . Iterative strategies for solving linearized discrete mean field games systems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2012, 7(2): 197-217. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2012.7.197 |
| [8] | Xiaoqian Gong, Alexander Keimer . On the well-posedness of the "Bando-follow the leader" car following model and a time-delayed version. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(2): 775-798. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023033 |
| [9] | Kexin Li, Hu Chen, Shusen Xie . Error estimate of L1-ADI scheme for two-dimensional multi-term time fractional diffusion equation. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(4): 1454-1470. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023064 |
| [10] | Li-Bin Liu, Limin Ye, Xiaobing Bao, Yong Zhang . A second order numerical method for a Volterra integro-differential equation with a weakly singular kernel. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(2): 740-752. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024033 |
Since 2014, Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika (BMKG) or the Indonesian Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency has determined that it will switch weather observations from manual to automatic in the entire BMKG weather observation network. One of the obstacles to improving the quality of data spatially and temporally is the limited capacity of human resources (untrained) and the difficulty of reaching certain locations [1,2]. Automation is one solution to improve the quality and quantity of BMKG observation data, both spatially and temporally. This modernization is very important to keep up with the digital era as well as to increase the quantity and quality of weather data so as to produce fast, precise, and accurate meteorological, climatological and geophysical information which is the current vision of the BMKG [3]. The problem that arises from the transition from manual to automatic weather observations is the suitability of the automatic observation data and the previous manual data [4]. This alignment effort requires parallel testing of these two data types. Meteorological observations manually (OBS) in the BMKG environment are generally obtained with standards, such as measuring instruments, observation method, time of observation, reporting, location, and equipment park [5]. But as technology advances, many things become recorded, digitized, and automated. Even in the 2020 era, there are demands for memorization, which inevitably BMKG also has to adjust.
The term automatic weather observation according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is weather observations obtained from weather equipment that can record and transmit data automatically [6]. This collection of equipment that measures several weather parameters is known as an automatic weather station. In contrast to manual weather observations, which are weather observations using a tool whose observations are recorded manually. One way to maintain the quality of observational data is to conduct measurement alignment automatically and manually within a minimum period of a year or two years and check for differences [7]. However, the WMO suggests that it is necessary to parallelize automatic weather observations over a certain period [8]. This process requires data from AWS to meet quality control (QC) requirements with statistical methods. The results of this quality control are very important in producing realistic and validated data that can be used as a basis for claiming that the data on the spot is a continuation of the previous manual observation.
A comparison of automatic and manual data in China found that there were variations in rainfall and air temperature, although they were still within tolerable limits [9]. However, this difference could be caused by a change in the tools used [10] or the data is not homogeneous [11]. The difference between these two types of measurement may be quite significant in the long run [12]. According to the research report in the Indonesian region, it shows that bias occurs during extreme conditions [13]. The difference between these two measurements is also influenced by location, where these two types of data are not normally distributed and are not homogeneous [14].
The coastal area which is the border of the sea and land is influenced by diurnal circulation in the form of sea breezes and land breezes. Likewise, Makassar City, which borders the Makassar Strait and the Java Sea, is significantly influenced by monsoon circulation and local wind circulation on land and sea [15]. The monsoon cycle can be seen from the nature of the rain that changes every half year, while the presence of land-sea winds can be detected by the dominant changes in westerly and southeasterly winds almost throughout the year in this city. If the estimation of rainfall using satellites that are very far away is quite good in this place compared to other places in South Sulawesi, are the measurements using AWS also less different than manual data [16,17,18]. Considering that weather observations will be transferred automatically and most of Indonesia's population is located in coastal areas, this change should not reduce the accuracy of meteorological data. Parallel comparison between these two measurements becomes very important to do. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to calculate and analyze the parallel measurement bias between manual parameter observations and automatic measurement data in coastal areas with monsoon patterns.
This study uses weather observation data in Makassar City, to be precise at the Paotere maritime meteorology station. As a city that has a strategic position because it is at the crossroads of trade traffic lanes, Makassar is a city that is developing very rapidly both in terms of economy and population dynamics. Makassar City is located at coordinates 1190BT and 5.80LS with an elevation of 1–32 meters above sea level. This tropical city is always warm all year round with air temperatures ranging from 20 ℃ to 39 ℃. The weather observation location is located in Paotere, which is the heritage port of the Gowa Sultanate—Tallo Perahu which is located in Ujung Tanah District, Makassar, South Sulawesi. This port is ± 5 km from Makassar City Square (Karebosi Field). Paotere is one of the most historic heritage folk harbors that still survives and is a testament to the legacy of the Gowa-Tallo Sultanate since the XIV century, where the 2nd King of Tallo Karaeng Same ri Liukang once dispatched 200 Phinisi Boat fleets to Malacca. Currently, Paotere Harbor is still normally used as a place for people's boats to dock, such as the phinisi and lambo. This place is also a trading center for fisherme's catch, which can be seen along the road in the harbor lined with shops selling various types of dried fish, and fishing equipment, as well as several seafood restaurants. According to Baharuddin, who works as a supervisor at Paotere Harbor, the word Paotere comes from the word Otere, which is a rope used in ships that dock. The location of the AWS equipment and manuals is near the Paotere fish auction as shown in Figure 1. Recorded in the last 10 years, the maximum annual rainfall reached 3693 mm in 2017 and the highest rainfall intensity in an hour reached 110 mm on December 16, 2014.
The location of manual observation equipment is in the world standard meteorological instrument park [15]. Manual equipment consists of various types, for example a digital barometer which is recorded every hour by the brand Vaisala, a digital anemometer produced by RM Young 26800, a manual rainfall meter which is measured every 3 hours and air temperature using a Schneider mercury thermometer. While, automatic weather station is produced by Vaisala and is located close to the Makassar Strait waters than the tool park. Unlike the manual rain gauge, the AWS rain gauge is a tipping bucket type with a sensitivity of 0.5 mm. The distance of the automatic weather system to the meteorology cage in the tool park is about 10 meters as shown in Figure 1. The anemometer elevations of these two types of tools are the same height, which is about 10 meters, while the temperature and humidity sensors are 50 cm apart. The data used in this study is data on all-weather parameters obtained by both types of observations. Humidity, air pressure, average, minimum, and maximum temperature, rainfall and wind direction and speed. January was chosen to represent the difference between observations using AWS and manual when there was a lot of rain, while June was to represent the dry season. The temporal resolution of AWS is very high, where data can be degenerated in 10 minutes, while the highest manual observation data can only be every hour. Both types of observations use the world standard time of the UTC universal time coordinate so that comparisons can be made directly.
In general, automatic and manual measurements of weather data generally have an abnormal distribution, but the homogeneity test generally shows that both are homogeneous [14,19,20,21,22]. The value of the difference between these two measurements is visible when using the calculation of the root mean square error, and correlation [13,23,24,25]. The difference between automatic and manual measurements in this study uses six methods, namely homogeneity analysis, statistical comparison of values and visually using wind rose for wind direction. The wind variable is a vector quantity that is very difficult to distinguish using only numbers. Visualization in this research uses wind rose because it is easy to analyze and can describe the distribution of wind distribution very clearly. Meanwhile, to calculate the difference between automatic and manual measurement results, correlation, root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were formulated using Eqs (1)–(3).
| $ r = \frac{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}\left({O}_{i}-\stackrel{-}{O}\right)\left({M}_{i}-\stackrel{-}{M}\right)}{\sqrt{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}{\left({O}_{i}-\stackrel{-}{O}\right)}^{2}}\sqrt{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}{\left({M}_{i}-\stackrel{-}{M}\right)}^{2}}} , $ | (1) |
| $ RMSE = \frac{\sqrt{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}{\left({M}_{i}-{O}_{i}\right)}^{2}}}{N} , $ | (2) |
| $ MAE = \frac{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}\;\left|{M}_{i}-{O}_{i}\right|}{N} , $ | (3) |
where N is the number of observations, O is the value of the weather parameter in the automatic tool, M is the value of the weather parameter in the manual, $ \stackrel{-}{O} $ is the average value of the weather parameter in the automatic tool, $ \stackrel{-}{M} $ is the average value of the weather parameter in the manual.
Correlation (r) measures the strength and direction of the relationship between variables [26]. The correlation value ranges between −1 and 1, where a value of 1 indicates a strong relationship between variables and is considered to have no relationship if the correlation is 0. A positive sign indicates a change in the direction of the variable in the same direction, while a negative sign indicates a change in the opposite direction. Much of the literature on correlation statistics is divided into 5 classes, namely uncorrelated (0.00–0.20), weak (0.21–0.40), moderate (0.41–0.60), strong (0.61–0. 80) and very strong if the value is > 0.80. Karaseva et al. and Prasetia et al. divide the correlation, which is strongly correlated if the value of r ≥ 0.50 [1,27]. Although there are also many evaluations of remote sensing rainfall estimates, the category of strong and weak correlation is not stated [28,29,30,31,32].
RMSE and MAE values are measures of deviation between automatic and manual tools. If each deviation is added up and divided by the amount of data, then the average size of the deviation is obtained. But the direct addition will cause each other to cancel the value of the deviation if there are positive and negative values. In contrast to the use of absolute values which will reduce the nature of mutually canceling deviations. This calculation is known as the mean absolute error or MAE. The weakness of the negating nature of the number of deviations can also be eliminated using the root mean square error or RMSE because each deviation is squared which automatically results are all positive. It's just that RMSE is sensitive to the value of outliers or outliers [31]. In contrast to the homogeneity test, which is a test of whether or not the variances of two or more distributions are equal. The homogeneity test that will be discussed in this paper is the homogeneity test of variance. The statistical homogeneity test was carried out to determine whether the data in the automatic weather variable O and manual M were homogeneous or not using varied data [33]. Equation (4) is the variance formulation which is applied to the results of manual and automatic observations.
| $ {Var}_{o} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}{\left({O}_{i}-\stackrel{-}{O}\right)}^{2}}{n(n-1)}} , \\{Var}_{M} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum _{i = 1}^{N}{\left({M}_{i}-\stackrel{-}{M}\right)}^{2}}{n(n-1)}}. $ | (4) |
To test for homogeneity, the F test was used.
| $ F = \frac{{Var}_{o}}{{Var}_{M}} . $ | (5) |
The F value is obtained from Fisher's statistical table. Equation (5) is used if the automatic variance is greater than the manual one. If the opposite happens, Eq (5) must be reversed with the automatic variance as a divisor, so that the result is that the F value is always greater than or equal to 1. While the test hypothesis H0: $ {Var}_{o} = {Var}_{M} $, H1: $ {Var}_{o}\ne {Var}_{M} $.
Besides statistical calculations and homogeneity tests, wind rose diagrams are also used. This is because the direction variable cannot be directly tested using numerical calculations.
Based on the homogeneity test, it was found that not always these two types of measurements are homogeneous. The amount of rainfall and its value greatly affect the homogeneity of AWS measurements and manual observations. In January only the results of temperature and pressure measurements were homogeneous as can be seen in Table 1. The F test values for wind speed, humidity and rainfall were greater than the F table values, which means that the AWS and manual data for these parameters were not homogeneous.
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Variance-AWS | 5.660 | 2.699 | 12.876 | 75.470 | 27.213 |
| Variance-OBS | 5.914 | 2.675 | 9.133 | 66.170 | 73.364 |
| Fcount | 1.045 | 1.009 | 1.410 | 1.141 | 2.696 |
| FTabel | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.233 |
| Decision | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Non-homogeneous | Non-homogeneous | Non-homogeneous |
DownLoad:
CSV
Different results were obtained from the calculation in June 2020, where in this month the rainfall was very rare. Based on the homogeneity test, only rainfall that is not homogeneous from the two types of measurements is obtained. The least amount of rainfall affects the homogeneity of AWS measurements and manual observations. This month only the results of rainfall measurements are not homogeneous as can be seen in Table 2. The F test values for wind speed, humidity and rainfall parameters are smaller than the F table values, which means that AWS and manual data for these parameters are homogeneous. The statistical comparison between AWS and manual using Correlation, RMSE and MAE in January and June can be seen in Tables 3 and 4. Except for rainfall, the correlation between the two types of data is generally strong to very strong. Measurements of temperature, pressure, and humidity are very strong with a correlation of more than 0.9, in contrast to wind speeds of only 0.76 to 0.81. While the rainfall in the two measurements is very weak correlation. AWS and manual deviations for temperature, wind speed and rainfall bias values are higher during the rainy season compared to when there is no or infrequent rain. Meanwhile, at the same time, the pressure and humidity values are usually higher during the dry season.
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Variance-AWS | 5.131 | 1.581 | 4.101 | 95.616 | 0.192 |
| Variance-OBS | 5.189 | 1.561 | 3.544 | 96.718 | 0.320 |
| Fcount | 1.011 | 1.013 | 1.157 | 1.011 | 1.664 |
| FTable | 1.131 | 1.131 | 1.365 | 1.131 | 1.237 |
| Decision | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Non-homogeneous |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Correlation | 0.970 | 0.980 | 0.810 | 0.940 | −0.100 |
| RMSE | 1.430 | 0.340 | 2.090 | 3.430 | 10.560 |
| MAE | −1.320 | 0.000 | 0.180 | 1.590 | −1.590 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Correlation | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.760 | 0.920 | 0.900 |
| RMSE | 1.540 | 0.370 | 1.410 | 4.400 | 0.250 |
| MAE | −1.450 | 0.180 | −0.340 | 2.080 | −0.010 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The homogeneity test resulted in significant differences in wind and humidity values from January and June, both of which were not homogeneous in January and became homogeneous in June. In the wind, in addition to the wind speed component, there is a wind direction component that should be a comparison. The comparison of the wind and its direction is carried out using wind rose as shown in Figure 2 for January and Figure 3 for June.
In the rainy season, the dominant wind direction comes from the west, but the east wind is the second most common in Makassar. This condition is a consequence of Makassar's location on the seafront, so that the influence of land-sea winds is evident, both AWS and manual data. The influence of the land sea breeze is always there in the rainy season months such as January, as well as in the dry season in June. In the dry season, where the east wind is dominant, it is seen in June, but the wind is both westerly. There are always east and west winds due to the location of the city of Makassar facing west on the ocean, which can be seen in the emergence of land-sea wind circulation. When viewed from the deviation of the wind speed, it seems that the magnitude of the wind speed in January has an effect on the homogeneity test.
The difference in measurement results between AWS and manual can also be seen from the boxplot graph that describes the quantile distribution. Data with high disparity means the quantile value will be very different from data with low distribution. The distribution of quantile values for each AWS and manual parameter can be seen in Figures 6 to 13.
The pressure values in January between AWS and manual are almost the same as in Figure 4, while there are slightly different in June. Manually measuring pressure results in slightly lower values than using AWS. The range of automatic measurement is also slightly higher than that of manual measurement as shown in Figure 5.
Temperatures in January and June on measurements using AWS and manual have almost the same pattern as in Figure 6. The results of manual measurements are slightly higher than those of automatic measurements. The median and first and third quantile values in manual observations tend to be higher than AWS, both in January and June.
A different pattern was found in wind speed measurements, where in January, AWS data showed a very high disparity compared to manual observations. Meanwhile, in June this measurement disparity is smaller compared to January which has a lot of rain as shown in Figure 6. The rainfall homogeneity test resulted in a non-homogeneous conclusion in January and June. The difference will be clearer by comparing the two measurements using a plot series of rainfall data as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Generally, the manual measurement results were much higher in the month where rainfall fell a lot, namely January which was seen in Figure 7. When the rainfall value is 30 mm/hour, AWS records a smaller value than the manual. Even in the event of rain with an intensity of more than 60mm/hour, the AWS value is very small compared to the manual rainfall rate.
Rain detection on AWS and manual looks better in the dry season in June. Only when it rains below 1 mm/hour, where manual equipment does not record rain, AWS is more sensitive to recording rainfall. However, it seems that the sensitivity of AWS equipment in the dry season is reduced when the rainfall is more than 4 mm/hour. When the rainfall has high intensity, AWS slow records the rainwater that enters the device. This may be because the tipping bucket movement did not record rainfall. However, if you look at the amount of rain the next day, it seems that the lack of rainfall on AWS will be recorded the next day as shown in Figure 8.
The conditions are different compared to June where the rainfall is not too much. This month the boxplot chart shows a higher variance in the AWS measurements than the manual, although in fact the rainfall values may be almost the same. In June, the intensity of rain fell is low, this makes it somewhat sensitive to variance so that the homogeneity test shows that it is not homogeneous. The boxplot results on humidity are almost the same as the temperature boxplot, where the manual data pattern is lower than AWS as shown in Figure 9.
The results of manual measurements and AWS produce data that is partially homogeneous, but sometimes also not homogeneous. In the rainy season, the difference between the two types of measurements is greater than in the dry season. Based on the boxplot graph, it shows changes in variability due to the magnitude of the measured parameter values, where humidity and rain are very sensitive to the disparity of measured values.
In January the pressure on AWS was about the same as the manual. In addition, based on the homogeneity test and boxplot graphs, it is shown that the two measurements are very similar. However, this condition changes during the dry season, where the pressure on AWS is higher than the manual results. Based on the temperature boxplot graph which shows the higher AWS temperature disparity compared to manual, it is suspected that it will have an effect on the air density at the location where the equipment is installed. Due to the air density affecting the pressure, automatically in June this air pressure also experienced a disparity in value between AWS and manual. Rapid changes in air are caused by the lack of water vapor content that can store latent heat which results in rapid changes in air pressure. However, this change is not too much value at temperature and pressure. The quantiles of temperature and pressure during the dry season are around the average.
In contrast to humidity, which during the rainy season tends to be very high in value or wetter when it rains, and then decreases when it is sunny, the disparity during the rainy season is higher than during the dry season. As a result, the homogeneity test during the rainy season, AWS and manual homogeneity tests concluded that it was not homogeneous. The location and elevation of the AWS sensors near the sea may have an effect on the rapid changes in air properties around the seaside compared to areas that are further away such as in the tool park, especially between the tool park and the AWS sensor there is a separator that is sufficient to block the wind. Both AWS and manual observations show that the influence of land-sea winds in Makassar is very strong. During the rainy season, where the dominant wind direction should only be from the west or around the west, but the easterly wind appears to be the second most common in Makassar. Both AWS and manual observations show the same result. This is reinforced during the dry season, where the east wind or around the east should be very dominant, but the results of the analysis show that in June the dominant wind is both westerly winds. There are always east and west winds due to the location of the city of Makassar facing west on the ocean, which can be seen in the emergence of land-sea wind circulation. When viewed from the deviation of the wind speed, it seems that the magnitude of the wind speed in January has an effect on the homogeneity test.
Precipitation is the most consistently different weather parameter between manual measurement and automatic observation or AWS. Both in January and June obtained the homogeneity test resulted in a non-homogeneous conclusion. In both rainy and low-rainy months, manual measurement is higher than automatic measurement. The disparity between the two types of measurement results in an inhomogeneous between AWS and manual. Based on the properties of these two types of measurements, it is possible to distort the results of observations. The first is time resolution, where AWS records every 10 minutes while manual observations every hour. In manual measurements, rain is even recorded every three hours so that the temporal resolution is very different. The AWS rain gauge type is tipping bucket, while manual observation is capped using gauge degrees. The second, according to the technician, there is a possibility that the electric current will weaken so that the rainfall record will be disrupted when the intensity of rainfall starts to increase. However, the comparison in this research uses data every 3 hours so that the AWS and manual rainfall values should not be much different. But given the inhomogeneity of the two and the obvious differences there are likely AWS tools to look out for.
Based on the comparative analysis of AWS and manual measurements, the homogeneity of these two types of measurements can change at any time with the following details:
1) During the rainy season, only pressure and temperature are identical and homogeneous. Meanwhile, in the dry season, apart from these two parameters, humidity and wind speed are also homogeneous and rainfall is an unstable parameter in January and June. The homogeneity test is very sensitive to very different values, where humidity and rainfall are very sensitive to the disparity of measured values.
2) Both AWS and manual observations show that the influence of land-sea winds in Makassar is very strong. During the rainy season, where the dominant wind direction should only be from the west or around the west, but the easterly wind appears to be the second most common in Makassar.
3) Both AWS and manual observations show the same result. This is reinforced during the dry season, where the east wind or around the east should be very dominant, but the results of the analysis show that in June the dominant wind is both westerly winds.
4) There are always east and west winds due to the location of Makassar city which faces west on the ocean, it can be seen in the emergence of land-sea wind circulation. The homogeneity test is very sensitive to very different values, where humidity and rainfall are very sensitive to the disparity of measured values.
AWS and manual observations show that the influence of land-sea winds in Makassar is very strong. During the rainy season, where the dominant wind direction should only be from the west or around the west, however, the easterly wind appears to be the second most common in Makassar. This is reinforced during the dry season, where the east wind or around the east should be very dominant, but the results of the analysis show that in June the dominant wind is both westerly winds. There are always east and west winds due to the location of Makassar city which faces west on the ocean, it can be seen in the emergence of land-sea wind circulation.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] |
De Strooper B, Saftig P, Craessaerts K, et al. (1998) Deficiency of presenilin-1 inhibits the normal cleavage of amyloid precursor protein. Nature 391: 387-390. doi: 10.1038/34910
|
| [2] |
Jankowsky JL, Fadale DJ, Anderson J, et al. (2004) Mutant presenilins specifically elevate the levels of the 42 residue beta-amyloid peptide in vivo: evidence for augmentation of a 42-specific gamma secretase. Hum Mol Genet 13: 159-170. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddh019
|
| [3] |
Clark RF, Hutton M, Fuldner M, et al. (1995) The structure of the presenilin 1 (S182) gene and identification of six novel mutations in early onset AD families. Nat Genet 11: 219-222. doi: 10.1038/ng1095-219
|
| [4] |
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
|
| [5] |
Weksler ME, Gouras G, Relkin NR, et al. (2005) The immune system, amyloid-beta peptide, and Alzheimer's disease. Immunol Rev 205: 244-256. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2005.00264.x
|
| [6] |
Hass MR, Sato C, Kopan R, et al. (2009) Presenilin: RIP and beyond. Semin Cell Dev Biol 20: 201-210. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.11.014
|
| [7] |
de Calignon A, Fox LM, Pitstick R, et al. (2010) Caspase activation precedes and leads to tangles. Nature 464: 1201-1204. doi: 10.1038/nature08890
|
| [8] |
Sleegers K, Lambert JC, Bertram L, et al. (2010) The pursuit of susceptibility genes for Alzheimer's disease: progress and prospects. Trends Genet 26: 84-93. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2009.12.004
|
| [9] |
Bertram L, Tanzi RE (2008) Thirty years of Alzheimer's disease genetics: the implications of systematic meta-analyses. Nat Rev Neurosci 9: 768-778. doi: 10.1038/nrn2494
|
| [10] |
Selkoe DJ, Hardy J (2016) The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease at 25 years. EMBO Mol Med2016: e201606210. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201606210
|
| [11] |
Jones L, Holmans PA, Hamshere ML, et al. (2010) Genetic evidence implicates the immune system and cholesterol metabolism in the aetiology of Alzheimer's disease. PLoS One 5: e13950. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013950
|
| [12] |
Porcellini E, Carbone I, Ianni M, et al. (2010) Alzheimer's disease gene signature says: beware of brain viral infections. Immun Ageing 7: 16. doi: 10.1186/1742-4933-7-16
|
| [13] |
Wozniak MA, Itzhaki RF, Shipley SJ, et al. (2007) Herpes simplex virus infection causes cellular beta-amyloid accumulation and secretase upregulation. Neurosci Lett 429: 95-100. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.09.077
|
| [14] |
Wozniak MA, Mee AP, Itzhaki RF (2009) Herpes simplex virus type 1 DNA is located within Alzheimer's disease amyloid plaques. J Pathol 217: 131-138. doi: 10.1002/path.2449
|
| [15] |
Santana S, Recuero M, Bullido MJ, et al. (2012) Herpes simplex virus type I induces the accumulation of intracellular beta-amyloid in autophagic compartments and the inhibition of the non-amyloidogenic pathway in human neuroblastoma cells. Neurobiol Aging 33: 430.e419-433. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.12.010
|
| [16] |
Seshadri S, Fitzpatrick AL, Ikram MA, et al. (2010) Genome-wide analysis of genetic loci associated with Alzheimer disease. JAMA 303: 1832-1840. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.574
|
| [17] |
Carter CJ (2010) Alzheimer's Disease: A Pathogenetic Autoimmune Disorder Caused by Herpes Simplex in a Gene-Dependent Manner. Int J Alzheimers Dis 2010: 140539. doi: 10.4061/2010/140539
|
| [18] |
Tolia A, De Strooper B (2009) Structure and function of γ-secretase. Semin Cell Dev Biol 20: 211-218. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.10.007
|
| [19] |
Edbauer D, Winkler E, Regula JT, et al. (2003) Reconstitution of gamma-secretase activity. Nat Cell Biol 5: 486-488. doi: 10.1038/ncb960
|
| [20] |
Kimberly WT, LaVoie MJ, Ostaszewski BL, et al. (2003) Gamma-secretase is a membrane protein complex comprised of presenilin, nicastrin, Aph-1, and Pen-2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 6382-6387. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1037392100
|
| [21] |
Takasugi N, Tomita T, Hayashi I, et al. (2003) The role of presenilin cofactors in the gamma-secretase complex. Nature 422: 438-441. doi: 10.1038/nature01506
|
| [22] |
Fraering PC, Ye W, Strub JM, et al. (2004) Purification and characterization of the human gamma-secretase complex. Biochemistry 43: 9774-9789. doi: 10.1021/bi0494976
|
| [23] |
Winkler E, Hobson S, Fukumori A, et al. (2009) Purification, pharmacological modulation, and biochemical characterization of interactors of endogenous human gamma-secretase. Biochemistry 48: 1183-1197. doi: 10.1021/bi801204g
|
| [24] |
Sato T, Diehl TS, Narayanan S, et al. (2007) Active gamma-secretase complexes contain only one of each component. J Biol Chem 282: 33985-33993. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M705248200
|
| [25] |
Hebert SS, Serneels L, Dejaegere T, et al. (2004) Coordinated and widespread expression of gamma-secretase in vivo: evidence for size and molecular heterogeneity. Neurobiol Dis 17: 260-272. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2004.08.002
|
| [26] |
Shirotani K, Edbauer D, Prokop S, et al. (2004) Identification of distinct gamma-secretase complexes with different APH-1 variants. J Biol Chem 279: 41340-41345. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M405768200
|
| [27] |
Beel AJ, Sanders CR (2008) Substrate specificity of gamma-secretase and other intramembrane proteases. Cell Mol Life Sci 65: 1311-1334. doi: 10.1007/s00018-008-7462-2
|
| [28] |
Coen K, Annaert W (2010) Presenilins: how much more than gamma-secretase?! Biochem Soc Trans 38: 1474-1478. doi: 10.1042/BST0381474
|
| [29] |
McCarthy JV, Twomey C, Wujek P (2009) Presenilin-dependent regulated intramembrane proteolysis and γ-secretase activity. Cell Mol Life Sci 66: 1534-1555. doi: 10.1007/s00018-009-8435-9
|
| [30] |
Wolfe MS (2009) Intramembrane-cleaving Proteases. J Biol Chem 284: 13969-13973. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R800039200
|
| [31] |
Brown MS, Ye J, Rawson RB, et al. (2000) Regulated intramembrane proteolysis: a control mechanism conserved from bacteria to humans. Cell 100: 391-398. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80675-3
|
| [32] |
McCarthy JV, Twomey C, Wujek P (2009) Presenilin-dependent regulated intramembrane proteolysis and gamma-secretase activity. Cell Mol Life Sci 66: 1534-1555. doi: 10.1007/s00018-009-8435-9
|
| [33] |
Chhibber-Goel J, Coleman-Vaughan C, Agrawal V, et al. (2016) gamma-Secretase Activity Is Required for Regulated Intramembrane Proteolysis of Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Receptor 1 and TNF-mediated Pro-apoptotic Signalling. J Biol Chem 291: 5971-5985. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.679076
|
| [34] | Elzinga BM, Twomey C, Powell JC, et al. (2009) Interleukin-1 receptor type 1 is a substrate for gamma-secretase-dependent regulated intramembrane proteolysis. J Biol Chem 284: 1394-1409. |
| [35] |
Kuhn PH, Marjaux E, Imhof A, et al. (2007) Regulated intramembrane proteolysis of the interleukin-1 receptor II by alpha-, beta-, and gamma-secretase. J Biol Chem 282: 11982-11995. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M700356200
|
| [36] |
Chalaris A, Gewiese J, Paliga K, et al. (2010) ADAM17-mediated shedding of the IL6R induces cleavage of the membrane stub by gamma-secretase. Biochim Biophys Acta 1803: 234-245. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2009.12.001
|
| [37] |
Schulte A, Schulz B, Andrzejewski MG, et al. (2007) Sequential processing of the transmembrane chemokines CX3CL1 and CXCL16 by alpha- and gamma-secretases. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 358: 233-240. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.04.100
|
| [38] |
Donoviel DB, Hadjantonakis AK, Ikeda M, et al. (1999) Mice lacking both presenilin genes exhibit early embryonic patterning defects. Genes Dev 13: 2801-2810. doi: 10.1101/gad.13.21.2801
|
| [39] |
Xia X, Qian S, Soriano S, et al. (2001) Loss of presenilin 1 is associated with enhanced beta-catenin signalling and skin tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 10863-10868. doi: 10.1073/pnas.191284198
|
| [40] |
Guo Q, Fu W, Sopher BL, et al. (1999) Increased vulnerability of hippocampal neurons to excitotoxic necrosis in presenilin-1 mutant knock-in mice. Nat Med 5: 101-106. doi: 10.1038/4789
|
| [41] |
Feng R, Rampon C, Tang YP, et al. (2001) Deficient neurogenesis in forebrain-specific presenilin-1 knockout mice is associated with reduced clearance of hippocampal memory traces. Neuron 32: 911-926. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00523-2
|
| [42] |
Wang R, Dineley KT, Sweatt JD, et al. (2004) Presenilin 1 familial Alzheimer's disease mutation leads to defective associative learning and impaired adult neurogenesis. Neuroscience 126: 305-312. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.03.048
|
| [43] |
Herreman A, Hartmann D, Annaert W, et al. (1999) Presenilin 2 deficiency causes a mild pulmonary phenotype and no changes in amyloid precursor protein processing but enhances the embryonic lethal phenotype of presenilin 1 deficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 11872-11877. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.21.11872
|
| [44] |
Tournoy J, Bossuyt X, Snellinx A, et al. (2004) Partial loss of presenilins causes seborrheic keratosis and autoimmune disease in mice. Hum Mol Genet 13: 1321-1331. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddh151
|
| [45] |
Maraver A, Tadokoro CE, Badura ML, et al. (2007) Effect of presenilins in the apoptosis of thymocytes and homeostasis of CD8+ T cells. Blood 110: 3218-3225. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-01-070359
|
| [46] |
Laky K, Fowlkes BJ (2007) Presenilins regulate αβ T cell development by modulating TCR signalling. J Exp Med 204: 2115-2129. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070550
|
| [47] |
Yagi T, Giallourakis C, Mohanty S, et al. (2008) Defective signal transduction in B lymphocytes lacking presenilin proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 979-984. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707755105
|
| [48] |
Beglopoulos V, Sun X, Saura CA, et al. (2004) Reduced beta-amyloid production and increased inflammatory responses in presenilin conditional knock-out mice. J Biol Chem 279: 46907-46914. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M409544200
|
| [49] |
Jayadev S, Case A, Eastman AJ, et al. (2010) Presenilin 2 Is the Predominant γ-Secretase in Microglia and Modulates Cytokine Release. PLoS ONE 5: e15743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015743
|
| [50] |
Glenn G, van der Geer P (2008) Toll-like receptors stimulate regulated intramembrane proteolysis of the CSF-1 receptor through Erk activation. FEBS Lett 582: 911-915. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2008.02.029
|
| [51] |
Garlind A, Brauner A, Hojeberg B, et al. (1999) Soluble interleukin-1 receptor type II levels are elevated in cerebrospinal fluid in Alzheimer's disease patients. Brain Res 826: 112-116. doi: 10.1016/S0006-8993(99)01092-6
|
| [52] |
Dinarello CA (2011) Interleukin-1 in the pathogenesis and treatment of inflammatory diseases. Blood 117: 3720-3732. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-07-273417
|
| [53] |
Twomey C, Qian S, McCarthy JV (2009) TRAF6 promotes ubiquitination and regulated intramembrane proteolysis of IL-1R1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 381: 418-423. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.02.051
|
| [54] |
Powell JC, Twomey C, Jain R, et al. (2009) Association between Presenilin-1 and TRAF6 modulates regulated intramembrane proteolysis of the p75NTR neurotrophin receptor. J Neurochem 108: 216-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05763.x
|
| [55] | Curtis BM, Widmer MB, deRoos P, et al. (1990) IL-1 and its receptor are translocated to the nucleus. J Immunol 144: 1295-1303. |
| [56] |
Levine SJ (2008) Molecular Mechanisms of Soluble Cytokine Receptor Generation. J Biol Chem 283: 14177-14181. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R700052200
|
| [57] |
Frykman S, Hur JY, Franberg J, et al. (2010) Synaptic and endosomal localization of active gamma-secretase in rat brain. PLoS One 5: e8948. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008948
|
| [58] | Meckler X, Checler F (2016) Presenilin 1 and Presenilin 2 Target gamma-Secretase Complexes to Distinct Cellular Compartments. J Biol ChemM115: 708297. |
| [59] |
Doody RS, Raman R, Farlow M, et al. (2013) A phase 3 trial of semagacestat for treatment of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 369: 341-350. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210951
|
| [60] |
Goodbourn S, Didcock L, Randall RE (2000) Interferons: cell signalling, immune modulation, antiviral response and virus countermeasures. J Gen Virol 81: 2341-2364. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-81-10-2341
|
| [61] |
Saleh AZ, Fang AT, Arch AE, et al. (2004) Regulated proteolysis of the IFNaR2 subunit of the interferon-alpha receptor. Oncogene 23: 7076-7086. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207955
|
| [62] |
Garton KJ, Gough PJ, Raines EW (2006) Emerging roles for ectodomain shedding in the regulation of inflammatory responses. J Leukoc Biol 79: 1105-1116. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0106038
|
| [63] |
Mambole A, Baruch D, Nusbaum P, et al. (2008) The cleavage of neutrophil leukosialin (CD43) by cathepsin G releases its extracellular domain and triggers its intramembrane proteolysis by presenilin/gamma-secretase. J Biol Chem 283: 23627-23635. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M710286200
|
| [64] |
Cui W, Ke JZ, Zhang Q, et al. (2006) The intracellular domain of CD44 promotes the fusion of macrophages. Blood 107: 796-805. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-1902
|
| [65] |
Carey BW, Kim DY, Kovacs DM (2007) Presenilin/gamma-secretase and alpha-secretase-like peptidases cleave human MHC Class I proteins. Biochem J 401: 121-127. doi: 10.1042/BJ20060847
|
| [66] |
Bonifati DM, Kishore U (2007) Role of complement in neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation. Mol Immunol 44: 999-1010. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2006.03.007
|
| [67] |
Veerhuis R, Nielsen HM, Tenner AJ (2011) Complement in the brain. Mol Immunol 48: 1592-1603. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2011.04.003
|
| [68] |
Fonseca MI, Chu SH, Berci AM, et al. (2011) Contribution of complement activation pathways to neuropathology differs among mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. J Neuroinflammation 8: 4. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-8-4
|
| [69] |
Webster SD, Galvan MD, Ferran E, et al. (2001) Antibody-Mediated Phagocytosis of the Amyloid β-Peptide in Microglia Is Differentially Modulated by C1q. J Immunol 166: 7496-7503. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.166.12.7496
|
| [70] |
Fonseca MI, Zhou J, Botto M, et al. (2004) Absence of C1q leads to less neuropathology in transgenic mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 24: 6457-6465. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0901-04.2004
|
| [71] |
Fraser DA, Pisalyaput K, Tenner AJ (2010) C1q enhances microglial clearance of apoptotic neurons and neuronal blebs, and modulates subsequent inflammatory cytokine production. J Neurochem 112: 733-743. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06494.x
|
| [72] |
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
|
| [73] |
Akiyama H, Barger S, Barnum S, et al. (2000) Inflammation and Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 21: 383-421. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(00)00124-X
|
| [74] |
Spitzer P, Herrmann M, Klafki H-W, et al. (2010) Phagocytosis and LPS alter the maturation state of β-amyloid precursor protein and induce different Aβ peptide release signatures in human mononuclear phagocytes. J Neuroinflammation 7: 59-59. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-7-59
|
| [75] |
Morgan D, Gordon MN, Tan J, et al. (2005) Dynamic complexity of the microglial activation response in transgenic models of amyloid deposition: implications for Alzheimer therapeutics. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 64: 743-753. doi: 10.1097/01.jnen.0000178444.33972.e0
|
| [76] |
Streit WJ (2004) Microglia and Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis. J Neurosci Res 77: 1-8. doi: 10.1002/jnr.20093
|
| [77] | Trudler D, Farfara D, Frenkel D (2010) Toll-Like Receptors Expression and Signalling in Glia Cells in Neuro-Amyloidogenic Diseases: Towards Future Therapeutic Application. Mediators of Inflammation 2010: 12. |
| [78] |
Kumar H, Kawai T, Akira S (2011) Pathogen recognition by the innate immune system. Int Rev Immunol 30: 16-34. doi: 10.3109/08830185.2010.529976
|
| [79] |
Carty M, Bowie AG (2011) Evaluating the role of Toll-like receptors in diseases of the central nervous system. Biochem Pharmacol 81: 825-837. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2011.01.003
|
| [80] |
Chen F, Hasegawa H, Schmitt-Ulms G, et al. (2006) TMP21 is a presenilin complex component that modulates [gamma]-secretase but not [epsiv]-secretase activity. Nature 440: 1208-1212. doi: 10.1038/nature04667
|
| [81] | Iribarren P, Chen K, Hu J, et al. (2005) CpG-containing oligodeoxynucleotide promotes microglial cell uptake of amyloid beta 1-42 peptide by up-regulating the expression of the G-protein- coupled receptor mFPR2. FASEBJ 19: 2032-2034. |
| [82] |
Jin JJ, Kim HD, Maxwell JA, et al. (2008) Toll-like receptor 4-dependent upregulation of cytokines in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Neuroinflammation 5: 23. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-5-23
|
| [83] |
Herber DL, Mercer M, Roth LM, et al. (2007) Microglial activation is required for Abeta clearance after intracranial injection of lipopolysaccharide in APP transgenic mice. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol 2: 222-231. doi: 10.1007/s11481-007-9069-z
|
| [84] |
DiCarlo G, Wilcock D, Henderson D, et al. (2001) Intrahippocampal LPS injections reduce Abeta load in APP+PS1 transgenic mice. Neurobiol Aging 22: 1007-1012. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(01)00292-5
|
| [85] |
Richard KL, Filali M, Prefontaine P, et al. (2008) Toll-like receptor 2 acts as a natural innate immune receptor to clear amyloid beta 1-42 and delay the cognitive decline in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 28: 5784-5793. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1146-08.2008
|
| [86] |
Jana M, Palencia CA, Pahan K (2008) Fibrillar amyloid-beta peptides activate microglia via TLR2: implications for Alzheimer's disease. J Immunol 181: 7254-7262. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.10.7254
|
| [87] |
Frank S, Copanaki E, Burbach GJ, et al. (2009) Differential regulation of toll-like receptor mRNAs in amyloid plaque-associated brain tissue of aged APP23 transgenic mice. Neurosci Lett 453: 41-44. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.01.075
|
| [88] |
Michaud J-P, Richard KL, Rivest S (2011) MyD88-adaptor protein acts as a preventive mechanism for memory deficits in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Mol Neurodegener 6: 5-5. doi: 10.1186/1750-1326-6-5
|
| [89] |
Cui JG, Li YY, Zhao Y, et al. (2010) Differential regulation of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase-1 (IRAK-1) and IRAK-2 by microRNA-146a and NF-kappaB in stressed human astroglial cells and in Alzheimer disease. J Biol Chem 285: 38951-38960. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.178848
|
| [90] |
Standridge JB (2006) Vicious cycles within the neuropathophysiologic mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 3: 95-108. doi: 10.2174/156720506776383068
|
| [91] |
Lue LF, Walker DG, Rogers J (2001) Modeling microglial activation in Alzheimer's disease with human postmortem microglial cultures. Neurobiol Aging 22: 945-956. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(01)00311-6
|
| [92] | Yan Q, Zhang J, Liu H, et al. (2003) Anti-inflammatory drug therapy alters beta-amyloid processing and deposition in an animal model of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 23: 7504-7509. |
| [93] |
Yamamoto M, Kiyota T, Horiba M, et al. (2007) Interferon-γ and Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Regulate Amyloid-β Plaque Deposition and β-Secretase Expression in Swedish Mutant APP Transgenic Mice. Am J Pathol 170: 680-692. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2007.060378
|
| [94] |
Kong Q, Peterson TS, Baker O, et al. (2009) Interleukin-1beta enhances nucleotide-induced and alpha-secretase-dependent amyloid precursor protein processing in rat primary cortical neurons via up-regulation of the P2Y(2) receptor. J Neurochem 109: 1300-1310. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06048.x
|
| [95] |
Sheng JG, Zhu SG, Jones RA, et al. (2000) Interleukin-1 Promotes Expression and Phosphorylation of Neurofilament and tau Proteins in Vivo. Exp Neurol 163: 388-391. doi: 10.1006/exnr.2000.7393
|
| [96] |
Moses GS, Jensen MD, Lue LF, et al. (2006) Secretory PLA2-IIA: a new inflammatory factor for Alzheimer's disease. J Neuroinflammation 3: 28. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-3-28
|
| [97] |
Rezai-Zadeh K, Gate D, Gowing G, et al. (2011) How to Get from Here to There: Macrophage Recruitment in Alzheimer's Disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 8: 156-163. doi: 10.2174/156720511795256017
|
| [98] |
Shaftel SS, Kyrkanides S, Olschowka JA, et al. (2007) Sustained hippocampal IL-1 beta overexpression mediates chronic neuroinflammation and ameliorates Alzheimer plaque pathology. J Clin Invest 117: 1595-1604. doi: 10.1172/JCI31450
|
| [99] |
Rogers J, Strohmeyer R, Kovelowski CJ, et al. (2002) Microglia and inflammatory mechanisms in the clearance of amyloid beta peptide. Glia 40: 260-269. doi: 10.1002/glia.10153
|
| [100] |
Jutras I, Laplante A, Boulais J, et al. (2005) Gamma-secretase is a functional component of phagosomes. J Biol Chem 280: 36310-36317. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M504069200
|
| [101] |
Kiyota T, Yamamoto M, Xiong H, et al. (2009) CCL2 Accelerates Microglia-Mediated Aβ Oligomer Formation and Progression of Neurocognitive Dysfunction. PLoS ONE 4: e6197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006197
|
| [102] |
El Khoury J, Toft M, Hickman SE, et al. (2007) Ccr2 deficiency impairs microglial accumulation and accelerates progression of Alzheimer-like disease. Nat Med 13: 432-438. doi: 10.1038/nm1555
|
| [103] |
De Strooper B, Chavez Gutierrez L (2015) Learning by failing: ideas and concepts to tackle gamma-secretases in Alzheimer's disease and beyond. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 55: 419-437. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124309
|
| [104] | Beher D, Clarke EE, Wrigley JD, et al. (2004) Selected non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and their derivatives target gamma-secretase at a novel site. Evidence for an allosteric mechanism. J Biol Chem 279: 43419-43426. |
| [105] |
Kukar T, Golde TE (2008) Possible mechanisms of action of NSAIDs and related compounds that modulate gamma-secretase cleavage. Curr Top Med Chem 8: 47-53. doi: 10.2174/156802608783334042
|
| [106] |
Wong GT, Manfra D, Poulet FM, et al. (2004) Chronic treatment with the gamma-secretase inhibitor LY-411,575 inhibits beta-amyloid peptide production and alters lymphopoiesis and intestinal cell differentiation. J Biol Chem 279: 12876-12882. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M311652200
|
| [107] |
Jack C, Berezovska O, Wolfe MS, et al. (2001) Effect of PS1 deficiency and an APP gamma-secretase inhibitor on Notch1 signalling in primary mammalian neurons. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 87: 166-174. doi: 10.1016/S0169-328X(01)00010-9
|
| [108] |
Geling A, Steiner H, Willem M, et al. (2002) A gamma-secretase inhibitor blocks Notch signalling in vivo and causes a severe neurogenic phenotype in zebrafish. EMBO Rep 3: 688-694. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kvf124
|
| [109] | Micchelli CA, Esler WP, Kimberly WT, et al. (2003) Gamma-secretase/presenilin inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease phenocopy Notch mutations in Drosophila. FASEB J 17: 79-81. |
| [110] |
Henley DB, Sundell KL, Sethuraman G, et al. (2014) Safety profile of semagacestat, a gamma-secretase inhibitor: IDENTITY trial findings. Curr Med Res Opin 30: 2021-2032. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.939167
|
| [111] |
Panza F, Frisardi V, Imbimbo BP, et al. (2010) REVIEW: gamma-Secretase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: The current state. CNS Neurosci Ther 16: 272-284. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2010.00164.x
|
| [112] |
Frisardi V, Solfrizzi V, Imbimbo PB, et al. (2010) Towards disease-modifying treatment of Alzheimer's disease: drugs targeting beta-amyloid. Curr Alzheimer Res 7: 40-55. doi: 10.2174/156720510790274400
|
| [113] |
Bergmans BA, De Strooper B (2010) gamma-secretases: from cell biology to therapeutic strategies. Lancet Neurol 9: 215-226. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70332-1
|
| [114] | Samson K (2010) NerveCenter: Phase III Alzheimer trial halted: Search for therapeutic biomarkers continues. Ann Neurol 68: A9-a12. |
| [115] |
Gillman KW, Starrett JE, Jr., Parker MF, et al. (2010) Discovery and Evaluation of BMS-708163, a Potent, Selective and Orally Bioavailable gamma-Secretase Inhibitor. ACS Med Chem Lett 1: 120-124. doi: 10.1021/ml1000239
|
| [116] |
De Strooper B (2014) Lessons from a failed gamma-secretase Alzheimer trial. Cell 159: 721-726. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.016
|
| [117] |
Cummings J (2010) What Can Be Inferred from the Interruption of the Semagacestat Trial for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease? Biol Psychiatry 68: 876-878. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.09.020
|
| [118] |
Qyang Y, Chambers SM, Wang P, et al. (2004) Myeloproliferative disease in mice with reduced presenilin gene dosage: effect of gamma-secretase blockage. Biochemistry 43: 5352-5359. doi: 10.1021/bi049826u
|
| [119] |
Imbimbo BP (2008) Therapeutic potential of gamma-secretase inhibitors and modulators. Curr Top Med Chem 8: 54-61. doi: 10.2174/156802608783334015
|
| [120] |
Pul R, Dodel R, Stangel M (2011) Antibody-based therapy in Alzheimer's disease. Expert Opin Biol Ther 11: 343-357. doi: 10.1517/14712598.2011.552884
|
| [121] |
Sarazin M, Dorothee G, de Souza LC, et al. (2013) Immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease: do we have all the pieces of the puzzle? Biol Psychiatry 74: 329-332. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.011
|
| [122] |
Brodaty H, Breteler MM, Dekosky ST, et al. (2011) The world of dementia beyond 2020. J Am Geriatr Soc 59: 923-927. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03365.x
|
| [123] |
Yamada K, Yabuki C, Seubert P, et al. (2009) Abeta immunotherapy: intracerebral sequestration of Abeta by an anti-Abeta monoclonal antibody 266 with high affinity to soluble Abeta. J Neurosci 29: 11393-11398. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2021-09.2009
|
| [124] |
Schenk D, Barbour R, Dunn W, et al. (1999) Immunization with amyloid-[beta] attenuates Alzheimer-disease-like pathology in the PDAPP mouse. Nature 400: 173-177. doi: 10.1038/22124
|
| [125] |
Lemere CA, Spooner ET, Leverone JF, et al. (2003) Amyloid-beta immunization in Alzheimer's disease transgenic mouse models and wildtype mice. Neurochem Res 28: 1017-1027. doi: 10.1023/A:1023203122036
|
| [126] |
Fu HJ, Liu B, Frost JL, et al. (2010) Amyloid-beta immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 9: 197-206. doi: 10.2174/187152710791012017
|
| [127] | Robert R, Dolezal O, Waddington L, et al. (2009) Engineered antibody intervention strategies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias by targeting amyloid and toxic oligomers. Protein Eng Des Sel 22: 199-208. |
| [128] |
Marin-Argany M, Rivera-Hernandez G, Marti J, et al. (2011) An anti-Abeta (amyloid beta) single-chain variable fragment prevents amyloid fibril formation and cytotoxicity by withdrawing Abeta oligomers from the amyloid pathway. Biochem J 437: 25-34. doi: 10.1042/BJ20101712
|
| [129] |
Panza F, Frisardi V, Imbimbo BP, et al. (2011) Anti-beta-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease: focus on bapineuzumab. Curr Alzheimer Res 8: 808-817. doi: 10.2174/156720511798192718
|
| [130] |
Lambracht-Washington D, Qu BX, Fu M, et al. (2011) DNA immunization against amyloid beta 42 has high potential as safe therapy for Alzheimer's disease as it diminishes antigen-specific Th1 and Th17 cell proliferation. Cell Mol Neurobiol 31: 867-874. doi: 10.1007/s10571-011-9680-7
|
| [131] |
Salloway S, Sperling R, Brashear HR (2014) Phase 3 trials of solanezumab and bapineuzumab for Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 370: 1460. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1402193
|
| [132] |
Salloway S, Sperling R, Fox NC, et al. (2014) Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 370: 322-333. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1304839
|
| [133] |
Krishnamurthy PK, Sigurdsson EM (2011) Therapeutic applications of antibodies in non-infectious neurodegenerative diseases. New Biotechnol 28: 511-517. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2011.03.020
|
| [134] |
Britschgi M, Wyss-Coray T (2009) Blood protein signature for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 66: 161-165. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2008.530
|
| [135] |
Lindberg C, Chromek M, Ahrengart L, et al. (2005) Soluble interleukin-1 receptor type II, IL-18 and caspase-1 in mild cognitive impairment and severe Alzheimer's disease. Neurochem Int 46: 551-557. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2005.01.004
|
| [136] |
Reddy MM, Wilson R, Wilson J, et al. (2011) Identification of Candidate IgG Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease via Combinatorial Library Screening. Cell 144: 132-142. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.11.054
|
| 1. | Dingwen Deng, Zhu-an Wang, Zilin Zhao, The maximum norm error estimate and Richardson extrapolation methods of a second-order box scheme for a hyperbolic-difference equation with shifts, 2024, 1607-3606, 1, 10.2989/16073606.2024.2385424 | |
| 2. | V. G. Pimenov, A. B. Lozhnikov, Richardson Method for a Diffusion Equation with Functional Delay, 2023, 321, 0081-5438, S204, 10.1134/S0081543823030173 |
Figures(1)
Tara P. Hurst, Caroline Coleman-Vaughan, Indu Patwal, Justin V. McCarthy. Regulated intramembrane proteolysis, innate immunity and therapeutic targets in Alzheimer’s disease[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(2): 138-157. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.2.138
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Variance-AWS | 5.660 | 2.699 | 12.876 | 75.470 | 27.213 |
| Variance-OBS | 5.914 | 2.675 | 9.133 | 66.170 | 73.364 |
| Fcount | 1.045 | 1.009 | 1.410 | 1.141 | 2.696 |
| FTabel | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.233 |
| Decision | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Non-homogeneous | Non-homogeneous | Non-homogeneous |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Variance-AWS | 5.131 | 1.581 | 4.101 | 95.616 | 0.192 |
| Variance-OBS | 5.189 | 1.561 | 3.544 | 96.718 | 0.320 |
| Fcount | 1.011 | 1.013 | 1.157 | 1.011 | 1.664 |
| FTable | 1.131 | 1.131 | 1.365 | 1.131 | 1.237 |
| Decision | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Non-homogeneous |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Correlation | 0.970 | 0.980 | 0.810 | 0.940 | −0.100 |
| RMSE | 1.430 | 0.340 | 2.090 | 3.430 | 10.560 |
| MAE | −1.320 | 0.000 | 0.180 | 1.590 | −1.590 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Correlation | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.760 | 0.920 | 0.900 |
| RMSE | 1.540 | 0.370 | 1.410 | 4.400 | 0.250 |
| MAE | −1.450 | 0.180 | −0.340 | 2.080 | −0.010 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Variance-AWS | 5.660 | 2.699 | 12.876 | 75.470 | 27.213 |
| Variance-OBS | 5.914 | 2.675 | 9.133 | 66.170 | 73.364 |
| Fcount | 1.045 | 1.009 | 1.410 | 1.141 | 2.696 |
| FTabel | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.128 | 1.233 |
| Decision | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Non-homogeneous | Non-homogeneous | Non-homogeneous |
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Variance-AWS | 5.131 | 1.581 | 4.101 | 95.616 | 0.192 |
| Variance-OBS | 5.189 | 1.561 | 3.544 | 96.718 | 0.320 |
| Fcount | 1.011 | 1.013 | 1.157 | 1.011 | 1.664 |
| FTable | 1.131 | 1.131 | 1.365 | 1.131 | 1.237 |
| Decision | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Homogeneous | Non-homogeneous |
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Correlation | 0.970 | 0.980 | 0.810 | 0.940 | −0.100 |
| RMSE | 1.430 | 0.340 | 2.090 | 3.430 | 10.560 |
| MAE | −1.320 | 0.000 | 0.180 | 1.590 | −1.590 |
| Parameter | Temperature | Pressure | Speed wind | Humidity | Rainfall |
| Correlation | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.760 | 0.920 | 0.900 |
| RMSE | 1.540 | 0.370 | 1.410 | 4.400 | 0.250 |
| MAE | −1.450 | 0.180 | −0.340 | 2.080 | −0.010 |
