News from Mars: Two-Tier Paradox, Intracellular PCR, Chimeric Junction Shift, Dark Matter mRNA and Other Remarkable Features of Mammalian RNA-Dependent mRNA Amplification. Implications for Alzheimer's Disease, RNA-Based Vaccines and mRNA Therapeutics

On the Inadequacy of the Current Transgenic Animal Models of Alzheimer's Disease: The Path Forward

For at least two reasons, the current transgenic animal models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) appear to be patently inadequate. They may be useful in many respects, the AD models; however, they are not. First, they are incapable of developing the full spectrum of the AD pathology. Second, they respond spectacularly well to drugs that are completely ineffective in the treatment of symptomatic AD. These observations indicate that both the transgenic animal models and the drugs faithfully reflect the theory that guided the design and development of both, the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH), and that both are inadequate because their underlying theory is. This conclusion necessitated the formulation of a new, all-encompassing theory of conventional AD-the ACH2.0. The two principal attributes of the ACH2.0 are the following. One, in conventional AD, the agent that causes the disease and drives its pathology is the intraneuronal amyloid-β (iAβ) produced in two distinctly different pathways. Two, following the commencement of AD, the bulk of Aβ is generated independently of Aβ protein precursor (AβPP) and is retained inside the neuron as iAβ. Within the framework of the ACH2.0, AβPP-derived iAβ accumulates physiologically in a lifelong process. It cannot reach levels required to support the progression of AD; it does, however, cause the disease. Indeed, conventional AD occurs if and when the levels of AβPP-derived iAβ cross the critical threshold, elicit the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR), and trigger the activation of the AβPP-independent iAβ generation pathway; the disease commences only when this pathway is operational. The iAβ produced in this pathway reaches levels sufficient to drive the AD pathology; it also propagates its own production and thus sustains the activity of the pathway and perpetuates its operation. The present study analyzes the reason underlying the evident inadequacy of the current transgenic animal models of AD. It concludes that they model, in fact, not Alzheimer's disease but rather the effects of the neuronal ISR sustained by AβPP-derived iAβ, that this is due to the lack of the operational AβPP-independent iAβ production pathway, and that this mechanism must be incorporated into any successful AD model faithfully emulating the disease. The study dissects the plausible molecular mechanisms of the AβPP-independent iAβ production and the pathways leading to their activation, and introduces the concept of conventional versus unconventional Alzheimer's disease. It also proposes the path forward, posits the principles of design of productive transgenic animal models of the disease, and describes the molecular details of their construction.

The Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis 2.0 for Alzheimer's Disease and Aging-Associated Cognitive Decline: From Molecular Basis to Effective Therapy

With the long-standing amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) largely discredited, there is an acute need for a new all-encompassing interpretation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Whereas such a recently proposed theory of AD is designated ACH2.0, its commonality with the ACH is limited to the recognition of the centrality of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the disease, necessitated by the observation that all AD-causing mutations affect, in one way or another, Aβ. Yet, even this narrow commonality is superficial since AD-causing Aβ of the ACH differs distinctly from that specified in the ACH2.0: Whereas in the former, the disease is caused by secreted extracellular Aβ, in the latter, it is triggered by Aβ-protein-precursor (AβPP)-derived intraneuronal Aβ (iAβ) and driven by iAβ generated independently of AβPP. The ACH2.0 envisions AD as a two-stage disorder. The first, asymptomatic stage is a decades-long accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ, which occurs via internalization of secreted Aβ and through intracellular retention of a fraction of Aβ produced by AβPP proteolysis. When AβPP-derived iAβ reaches critical levels, it activates a self-perpetuating AβPP-independent production of iAβ that drives the second, devastating AD stage, a cascade that includes tau pathology and culminates in neuronal loss. The present study analyzes the dynamics of iAβ accumulation in health and disease and concludes that it is the prime factor driving both AD and aging-associated cognitive decline (AACD). It discusses mechanisms potentially involved in AβPP-independent generation of iAβ, provides mechanistic interpretations for all principal aspects of AD and AACD including the protective effect of the Icelandic AβPP mutation, the early onset of FAD and the sequential manifestation of AD pathology in defined regions of the affected brain, and explains why current mouse AD models are neither adequate nor suitable. It posits that while drugs affecting the accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ can be effective only protectively for AD, the targeted degradation of iAβ is the best therapeutic strategy for both prevention and effective treatment of AD and AACD. It also proposes potential iAβ-degrading drugs.

The Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis 2.0: Generalization of the Concept

Recently, we proposed the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis 2.0 (ACH2.0), a reformulation of the ACH. In the former, in contrast to the latter, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is driven by intraneuronal amyloid-β (iAβ) and occurs in two stages. In the first, relatively benign stage, Aβ protein precursor (AβPP)-derived iAβ activates, upon reaching a critical threshold, the AβPP-independent iAβ-generating pathway, triggering a devastating second stage resulting in neuronal death. While the ACH2.0 remains aligned with the ACH premise that Aβ is toxic, the toxicity is exerted because of intra- rather than extracellular Aβ. In this framework, a once-in-a-lifetime-only iAβ depletion treatment via transient activation of BACE1 and/or BACE2 (exploiting their Aβ-cleaving activities) or by any means appears to be the best therapeutic strategy for AD. Whereas the notion of differentially derived iAβ being the principal moving force at both AD stages is both plausible and elegant, a possibility remains that the second AD stage is enabled by an AβPP-derived iAβ-activated self-sustaining mechanism producing a yet undefined deleterious "substance X" (sX) which anchors the second AD stage. The present study generalizes the ACH2.0 by incorporating this possibility and shows that, in this scenario, the iAβ depletion therapy may be ineffective at symptomatic AD stages but fully retains its preventive potential for both AD and the aging-associated cognitive decline, which is defined in the ACH2.0 framework as the extended first stage of AD.

The Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis 2.0: On the Possibility of Once-in-a-Lifetime-Only Treatment for Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease and for Its Potential Cure at Symptomatic Stages

We posit that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is driven by amyloid-β (Aβ) generated in the amyloid-β protein precursor (AβPP) independent pathway activated by AβPP-derived Aβ accumulated intraneuronally in a life-long process. This interpretation constitutes the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis 2.0 (ACH2.0). It defines a tandem intraneuronal-Aβ (iAβ)-anchored cascade occurrence: intraneuronally-accumulated, AβPP-derived iAβ triggers relatively benign cascade that activates the AβPP-independent iAβ-generating pathway, which, in turn, initiates the second, devastating cascade that includes tau pathology and leads to neuronal loss. The entire output of the AβPP-independent iAβ-generating pathway is retained intraneuronally and perpetuates the pathway’s operation. This process constitutes a self-propagating, autonomous engine that drives AD and ultimately kills its host cells. Once activated, the AD Engine is self-reliant and independent from Aβ production in the AβPP proteolytic pathway; operation of the former renders the latter irrelevant to the progression of AD and brands its manipulation for therapeutic purposes, such as BACE (beta-site AβPP-cleaving enzyme) inhibition, as futile. In the proposed AD paradigm, the only valid direct therapeutic strategy is targeting the engine’s components, and the most effective feasible approach appears to be the activation of BACE1 and/or of its homolog BACE2, with the aim of exploiting their Aβ-cleaving activities. Such treatment would collapse the iAβ population and ‘reset’ its levels below those required for the operation of the AD Engine. Any sufficiently selective iAβ-depleting treatment would be equally effective. Remarkably, this approach opens the possibility of a short-duration, once-in-a-lifetime-only or very infrequent, preventive or curative therapy for AD; this therapy would be also effective for prevention and treatment of the ‘common’ pervasive aging-associated cognitive decline. The ACH2.0 clarifies all ACH-unresolved inconsistencies, explains the widespread ‘resilience to AD’ phenomenon, predicts occurrences of a category of AD-afflicted individuals without excessive Aβ plaque load and of a novel type of familial insusceptibility to AD; it also predicts the lifespan-dependent inevitability of AD in humans if untreated preventively. The article details strategy and methodology to generate an adequate AD model and validate the hypothesis; the proposed AD model may also serve as a research and drug development platform.