Perhaps I am just not well-informed but 30% slowdown in progression translates to sufferers have some mild improvement in cognitive tests and live a few months longer.
A few years longer. It's obviously frustratingly far from where we'd like to be. It was only a direct response to the claim that Alzheimer treatment isn't even in the "sometimes progress is slow" category, but rather in the "no meaningful benefit at all" category.
I'm not saying amyloid beta research should be terminated. Merely that everyone in the field should be willing to entertain other ideas.
We agree that people should be willing to entertain other ideas! I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
Note that not all AD-causing mutations in APP also cause amyloid accumulation, for example APP-Osaka (loss of APP residue E693) results in familial AD without any accumulation of amyloid [0].
This is interestingly similar to the Arctic Mutation, and in the same codon no less: no plaque, but still autosomal-dominant AD due to an APP mutation. I had previously taken the Arctic Mutation to be evidence that it's not plaque per se, put more likely protofibrils (which are components of plaques in normal AD, and still present under the Arctic Mutation) or precursor aggregates which are pathogenic. The fact that the Osaka Mutation blocks protofibril formation underlines the uncertainty, that you and I agree exists, on the detailed molecular mechanisms. I would be inclined to point then to oligomers, but you say the oligomers are found at far too low concentrations to be relevant — what's your source for this?
As you state, and I agree, APP is upstream of tau in natural AD pathogenesis, but does not cause neurodegeneration in mice. So we still don't know from direct experimentation how APP leads to tauopathy and neuodegeneration. The evidence that this is through Abeta per se is tentative at best.
Not only APP, but also PS1+PS2 mutations of course, can cause ADAD, and the relevant mutations all seem to cause more Abeta42 production. In the sporadic case, production usually seems unchanged, but clearance is usually impaired (especially with ApoE4). What they all seem to have in common is amyloid production or clearance. I'm curious if you know of another pathway they have in common besides this. Otherwise it's hard to see what the alternative hypothesis is, which could explain the etiology of seemingly highly-similar disease trajectories (ADAD + sporadic AD).
I’ll add as an addendum: APP mutations do cause neurodegeneration in mice, if those mice are combined amyloid+tau models. This seems most faithful to the human disease.
Yes, there is a clear sequence of how AD pathology develops, starting with amyloidopathy and progressing to tauopathy, but 1) there is as yet no established molecular connection between the two, and 2) one should not conflate pathology with disease mechanisms.
I agree that the specific molecular mechanism(s) is/are currently unknown. I've seen a number of proposals, but to my knowledge there isn't smoking-gun evidence for any one of them. But there can be causal evidence that A causes B (such as which I list) which exceeds a mere sequence of "A first, then B", and without knowing the specific mechanisms by which A causes B.
We know that mutations in APP do cause AD. How? And if amyloid is not the "proximate" cause of AD, how do mutations in APP cause AD? Include in this Down syndrome, where >90% of cases develop early onset AD by age 50. They have an extra copy of APP that is not mutated.
A bit confused by these questions, and I suspect the confusion may have to do with the term "proximate". By "amyloid is not the proximate cause of neurodegeneration", I simply mean it is upstream, mediated by another cause (namely tau). I think that clarification answers these questions.
Furthermore, people can accumulate large amounts of amyloid in the brain without having any notable dementia.
As predicted by the ATN model, at least for some time. But there is a threshold of amyloid pathology that does seem to guarantee progression to tau pathology and dementia.
Adding tau to the equation does not help much in explaining how APP mutations cause AD. All people have tau. Furthermore, mutations in tau do not cause AD, they cause different neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. frontotemporal dementia).
Sure, there are different tauopathies, each with a characteristic fold. All people have tau, but there's a specific AD tau fold emerging apparently from the locus coeruleus, then spreading to the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, and it's this that seems heavily accelerated by the presence of amyloid pathology in humans. (By the way, a notable fact is that autosomal-dominant AD -- clearly caused by APP/PSEN1/PSEN2 mutations affecting amyloid production -- has the same tau fold as sporadic AD, even though the large majority of other tauopathies do not.)
Combining APP mutations with presenilin mutation and/or tau mutations in mice does lead to worse outcomes, but the same could be said for combining any other random set of neurodegeneration-associated gene mutations.
Note I didn't just say it "leads to worse outcomes". It's specifically that amyloid pathology worsens tau pathology, and then neurodegeneration occurs colocated with the tau pathology. This cannot be said for other random sets of mutations, in general.
(By the way, basically all of these points are discussed in the article I wrote which got linked above. You're under no obligation to read it but it might save us some time.)
One may then ask, what is being remedied in the many, many, studies that claim to successfully target amyloid toxicity in mice? And is this relevant to the processes that occur in AD?
I don't think studies rescuing cognitive deficits in amyloid-only mice are convincing evidence for the amyloid hypothesis, precisely because we know amyloid is not the proximate cause of neurodegeneration in actual Alzheimer's disease, and that proximate cause does not exist in those mice.
In other words, these mice are not faithful recapitulations of the full disease. They have their amyloid production turned up so far that their amyloid pathology seems to cause cognitive deficits, but that's not what's happening in humans. They are, at best, a good vehicle for testing specific narrow hypotheses about amyloid production and clearance. The field has largely moved on from amyloid-only mice as a direct predictor of clinical efficacy, and that was the right call.
Human pathology studies are limited in ability to determine causal agents because they are primarily observational, i.e. they find correlations, show that changes in certain other proteins or processes are associated, such as tau that you mention, inflammation, etc. Or as you mention, show that the pathological hallmarks of AD have a stereotypical order of appearance.
Here is some data in living humans, besides genetics, that has relevance to causation, in my opinion:
- The location and severity of amyloid pathology is a poor spatiotemporal match to the sites of neuronal volume loss, and to the severity and nature of clinical deficits. However, the location and severity of tau pathology is a very good match to both of these things. Of course, since these observations are correlational in nature, they don't absolutely prove a specific causal theory. But they do rule out, for example, the idea that amyloid is proximately connected (by which I mean nearby somewhere in the causal graph) to the process of neurodegeneration, whereas tau seems to be very proximately connected. From this observation alone tau could be downstream or sidestream rather than upstream, but it does then suggest that whatever causes tau pathology is itself upstream of neurodegeneration, since correlations always have a cause (the correct statement that "correlation ≠ causation" simply means "correlation between A and B does not imply that A causes B", but the explanation must be either A causes B, B causes A, or C causes both A and B).
- Anti-amyloid antibodies which remove plaque in humans cause downstream reductions in tau pathology in humans, and, separately, have clinical benefits in those humans.
- The spatiotemporal progression of amyloid and tau pathology is highly consistent with the hypothesis that amyloid pathology greatly worsens the tau pathology, but not vice versa. And there's not an alternative explanation I've come across for this fact than that amyloid pathology worsens tau pathology.
All of the above facts are generally true in combined amyloid+tau mouse models as well as in vitro human cell studies, which is some reason to believe these are closer to faithfully recapitulating the disease than the amyloid-only models. Once we believe that, we can then do more causal interventions on those models which we couldn't do in humans, and learn more about causality. For example, we know that intentionally worsening amyloid pathology in amyloid+tau mouse models also causes tau pathology and neurodegeneration to worsen in mouse models. And because these models look closer to the full disease than the amyloid-only models, this is at least relevant causal evidence, though we always have to be open to the possibility that the disease models are still missing some important elements.
I'm not aware of an alternative hypothesis to the (ATN) amyloid → tau → neurodegeneration model which synthesizes all of the above facts, along with the genetic evidence for amyloid's causal role which you referred to. By contrast, I'm not aware of any evidence inconsistent with the ATN model.
This is a reasonable challenge. I won't and shouldn't be able to convince you that my process was satisfactory, but I'll describe it anyways.
I agree that I don't have the qualifications to check whether, for example, a particular cryo-EM study was conducted properly. But I can check whether those who do have such qualifications disagree on the methodology or findings of that particular study. There's a lively debate within the Alzheimer's research community; it's not hard to find dissenting opinions on just about anything, and I actively seek them out, and when such disagreement exists, I avoid weighting any evidence too heavily, unless the disagreement is about broader matters of synthesis or specific statistical or methodological questions in which my non-biological scientific background permits me to reach my own conclusions.
I am also careful not to heavily weight a single assumption-laden preclinical study conducted by a single lab, for example, but instead to look for "smoking gun"-style evidence, in those few cases that it exists, or to look at the bulk of evidence across many studies from many labs, where the specific conclusions do not seem to be seriously in doubt by experts. In general, I've been skeptical, considering alternative explanations wherever it seemed crucial to the bigger picture, and avoiding trusting anything that seemed like it involved knowledge which was heavily in the weeds on stuff that I couldn't understand. I had a personal motivation to understand the genuine truth here, and enough scientific background that I usually know when I'm out of my depth on a specific matter.
I think it's reasonable of you to say: that all sounds well and good, but I just don't know your process well enough to trust it, and you don't have formal qualifications on the matter, so I'll ignore what you say. I certainly wouldn't expect you to take anything on my authority. I see my article essentially as an act of science journalism, and scientific journalists often lack formal training in the field they report on. You can read it and see if the reasoning makes sense and the evidence is convincing, or you can reasonably ignore it and fall back on expert opinions.
I did the investigation precisely because the majority expert viewpoint was being called into question by a lot of non-experts, and I had a personal motivation to find out, genuinely, whether this critique was warranted. If you don't have that motivation, then it's probably not worth your time to do the same. I did, and I came away satisfied.
You're thinking of aducanumab. Lecanemab and donanemab have been in widespread use for several years now, and open-label extensions vs. external controls showing increasing benefits over longer treatment durations.
Those are amyloid-only mice. It's an amyloid+tau disease, with tau the proximate cause of neurodegeneration. Normal mice don't get tau pathology, whereas even healthy human beings do, however it stays localized until the presence of widespread amyloid pathology.
Causal intervention on amyloid+tau mice is consistent with causal mediation from longitudinal human neuroimaging data: the amyloid pathology greatly accelerates tau pathology, and then this causes neurodegeneration.
Cease, yes, if the cause is removed early enough. But if you intervene too late (once symptoms are detectable), then the downstream tau pathology, which is what directly kills neurons, likely spreads on its own via a prion-like mechanism.
So far, no clinical trial has completed prior to clinical onset for an antibody which actually removes plaque. This is probably the main reason only 30% slowdown has been achieved so far. The donanemab prevention trial is due to complete next year. That will be an important one to watch.
The hypothesis that amyloid is simply a downstream effect, not a cause, is of course worth considering, and where my mind was at when I first approached the literature skeptically. The widespread presence of amyloid-beta plaques in Alzheimer's disease has been known since 1906, but the field didn't adopt the amyloid hypothesis for decades precisely because of this possibility. But then in the early 1990's, strong genetic causal evidence emerged, which is why the amyloid hypothesis emerged at that time. Other important causal evidence has emerged since, especially that tau pathology (the proximate cause of neurodegeneration) is causally downstream of amyloid pathology, which we know from many lines of evidence now. (See the article for a lot more detail on all this, if you are curious.)
As for the possibility that the successes of amyloid therapies might be explicable by chance, this is highly implausible. Only three (aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab) of a dozen or more amyloid therapies successfully cleared plaque, and it is precisely those three that achieved a slowdown of cognitive decline in phase 3 trials (with aducanumab succeeding in only one of its two, but with the others succeeding in their only phase 3), several of which with p-values below 0.001. This is not p-hacking or reporting bias.
Now if we consider amyloid beta therapies: we have treatments that target amyloid beta with varying degrees of success but at least some show definite reductions in amyloid beta plaques. To the best of my knowledge that has not shown to improve outcomes in Alzheimer's patients to any meaningful degree.
This is false. They slow down disease progression by about 30%, as measured by cognitive outcomes. This is discussed in the article.
What started as an argument to ignore arguments and evidence and instead rely on authority, seems now to have morphed into an argument that we should ignore the authority of the establishment, because of your own personal assessment of the evidence (which you have not yourself read) and your own personal synthesis of conversations you've had with researchers you've personally come into contact with (despite this being apparently unrepresentative of objective measures of typical researcher opinions).
Arguing from authority really only takes you so far when it ends up as an appeal to your personal experience. I'd rather you either address the arguments directly, or drop the dubious appeal to authority.
You said the camp promoting the amyloid hypothesis has struggled greatly to come up with evidence to support its position. What did you mean by that if not a read of the quality of the evidence?
Why do you continue to frame this as a choice between a single cherry-picked expert's opinion, and my own non-expert opinion? Either fairly represent the spectrum of experts' views, or decide based on the actual evidence and arguments.
Is your view that amyloid is actually a minority view among researchers? That seems completely wrong based on basically every conference proceeding I've viewed and the volume of papers and citations I've examined.
If your view is merely that there is a "camp" of experts that disagrees, then sure, but in that case, I do not think it is honest to frame this as a choice between believing in the authority of a single expert from that camp, vs. the (lack of) authority of me, a non-expert.
(I also think your read of the evidence is wrong, but I won't restate the arguments in my article.)
1. I don't say Derek Lowe is wrong because he's in the minority. Minorities are sometimes right. But since the parent comment was arguing on authority and my lack thereof, I point out only that one shouldn't cherry-pick one's choice of authorities. Either accept the majority opinion of the experts, or come to your own opinion based on the quality of the arguments and evidence.
2. I would never want anyone to believe what I say because of "Google/SpaceX creds" (I didn't even write that line, Scott added it, and only to provide a brief biography and acknowledge that I do not work in the field, not to lend an air of authority to my words).
3. There's no need to cite the fraud to me, since I already discuss it in my article. You are welcome to read that article and form your own opinion about the arguments therein.