Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Pharmacological Reviews
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Pharmacological Reviews

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Visit Pharm Rev on Facebook
  • Follow Pharm Rev on Twitter
  • Follow ASPET on LinkedIn
Review ArticleReview Article

Targeting Systemic Innate Immune Cells as a Therapeutic Avenue for Alzheimer Disease

Vincent Pons and Serge Rivest
Robert Dantzer, ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Pharmacological Reviews January 2022, 74 (1) 1-17; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pharmrev.121.000400
Vincent Pons
Neuroscience Laboratory, CHU de Québec Research Center and Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 2705 Laurier Boul., Québec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Serge Rivest
Neuroscience Laboratory, CHU de Québec Research Center and Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 2705 Laurier Boul., Québec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Dantzer
Neuroscience Laboratory, CHU de Québec Research Center and Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 2705 Laurier Boul., Québec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
Roles: ASSOCIATE EDITOR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Alzheimer disease (AD) is the first progressive neurodegenerative disease worldwide, and the disease is characterized by an accumulation of amyloid in the brain and neurovasculature that triggers cognitive decline and neuroinflammation. The innate immune system has a preponderant role in AD. The last decade, scientists focused their efforts on therapies aiming to modulate innate immunity. The latter is of great interest, since they participate to the inflammation and phagocytose the amyloid in the brain and blood vessels. We and others have developed pharmacological approaches to stimulate these cells using various ligands. These include toll-like receptor 4, macrophage colony stimulating factor, and more recently nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain–containing 2 receptors. This review will discuss the great potential to take advantage of the innate immune system to fight naturally against amyloid β accumulation and prevent its detrimental consequence on brain functions and its vascular system.

Significance Statement The focus on amyloid β removal from the perivascular space rather than targeting CNS plaque formation and clearance represents a new direction with a great potential. Small molecules able to act at the level of peripheral immunity would constitute a novel approach for tackling aberrant central nervous system biology, one of which we believe would have the potential of generating a lot of interest.

I. Alzheimer Disease

Alzheimer disease (AD) is the first progressive, neurodegenerative disease worldwide. The disease has no real effective treatment and no cure, for years researchers have tried to develop molecules to delay or slow the progression of AD in vain. The last decade has seen the emergence of molecules able to modify the pathology, especially in rodents. These compounds discussed in this review take advantage of the innate immunity, and can partly reprogram the latter to delay AD.

Clinically, AD is a multifactorial disorder manifested by a gradual decline in memory and other cognitive functions that leads to death within 8 to 10 years after diagnosis (Ballard et al., 2011). The decline is associated with the presence of specific neuronal loss, synapse alteration, neurofibrillary tangles, and senile plaques (Aarsland et al., 1996). AD progression is divided into different stages, namely early, moderate, and severe phases. The disease alters gradually short-term memory, behavior, verbal communication, and motor functions (Zvěřová 2019). The diagnosis is probabilistic, meaning that postmortem studies confirm initial diagnosis. The clinical evaluation is mainly based on personal and familial medical history, neurologic and physical examination, neuroimaging using PET scan associated with MRI, and laboratory tests (Dubois et al., 2016; Zvěřová 2019). Aging is the principal risk factor for AD. The incidence of the disease doubles every 5 years beyond age 65 (Querfurth and LaFerla 2010), meaning that 1/3 person aged 85 and older may have AD. Compared with obesity, diabetes, vascular, and cardiac conditions, age remains the principal risk factor. Noteworthy, the biologic sex has a direct impact on AD incidence; 2/3 of patients are women. This higher prevalence may be caused by the genetic and hormones (Fisher, Bennett, and Dong 2018). Estrogen isoform E2 and its receptor are found in the hypothalamus and hippocampus. This axis is of great interest, since studies revealed that E2 mediates sex-specific behaviors, regulate synaptic plasticity and neuronal survival, and has a neuroprotective role (Green and Simpkins 2000; Fisher, Bennett, and Dong 2018). E2 receptor β has also a direct role of the neuroinflammatory response by microglia (Gosselin and Rivest 2011). The decrease of E2 during the menopause has been proposed to be involved in the development of AD in women.

AD has multiple causes. Researchers have elaborated 3 main hypotheses explaining the origin of the disease: 1) amyloid hypothesis, by far the most studied, 2) τ hypothesis, and 3) the cholinergic hypothesis. For years, amyloid hypothesis was the principal explanation for AD, and this hypothesis states that amyloid aggregation starts a cascade of events such as hyperphosphorylation of τ protein, neuroinflammation, and neuronal dysfunction that ultimately lead to AD (Kametani and Hasegawa 2018). This hypothesis is reinforced by some evidence, such as the familial form of AD that is triggered by mutations leading to amyloid accumulation and in patients with Down syndrome, which have a marked and early amyloid deposition (Johannesson et al., 2021).

The τ hypothesis refers to an hyperphosphorylation of τ, a protein that participates to microtubule formation that is vital for axonal transport. Once hyperphosphorylated, τ tends to form neurofibrillary tangles that impairs neuronal functions and ultimately leads to axonal degeneration (Bennett et al., 2018). τ pathology is not restricted to AD, since hyperphosphorylated τ deposition could be found in healthy brain after a cellular stress or in Parkinson disease (Bloom 2014). Interestingly, under certain circumstances, amyloid deposition enhances τ pathology, although the link between both hypotheses is still debated (Arnsten et al., 2021). The last hypothesis states that the loss of cholinergic neurons is the main cause of dementia in AD, but the loss of cholinergic system is also found in Parkinson, Down syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Ferreira-Vieira et al., 2016).

Intriguingly, amyloid is found in τ and cholinergic hypotheses, suggesting that amyloid-β (Aβ) has a central role in the pathology, but it is important to note that these hypotheses are not statics, and they evolve over the time. Moreover, they cannot explain the whole pathology, since AD is a very complex and multifactorial disease.

There are 2 main forms of AD, the sporadic form of AD; mainly due to the environment, lifestyle, and the genetic form of the disease named the familial form. The early onset of Alzheimer’s Disease (EOAD) represents less than 1%–2% of cases, it is primarily caused by a mutation of Amyloid precursor protein (APP) on chromosome 21q21, Presenilin 1 (PSEN1) on chromosome 14 (14q24.2), and PSEN2 on chromosome 1 (1q42.13). These mutations are autosomal dominant; PSEN1 represents up to 80% of mutations, whereas PSEN2 accounts for 5%, resulting in an aberrant Aβ production and/or an increase in plaque formation. Also, APP accounts for 15% of modifications, it leads to a misfolded protein (Bekris et al., 2010). APP gene is alternatively spliced and named according to the length. Three isoforms are mainly involved in AD, APP695 is specifically expressed in the CNS, whereas APP751 and APP770 are found in CNS and peripheral tissues. So far, 32 different APP missense mutations are characterized; the vast majority of these mutations are found at the secretase cleavage domain or at the transmembrane domain (Bertram 2004). Mutations of APP seem to be specific to the EOAD form. In extreme cases, defects in PSEN1 can lead to the most severe form of AD, with an onset occurring as early as the age of 30. However, the mean age of the onset is over age 58 when PSEN1 is involved. 176 PSEN1 mutations have been identified, as for APP the majority are missense mutations (Sherrington et al., 1995). PSEN2 mutations differ from the clinical pattern of PSEN1-affected patients in that the age of the onset varies between 45 and 88 years. PSEN2 mutations, like others, are missense mutations and have a lower penetrance than PSEN1 gene modifications (Bekris et al., 2010).

Patients with EOAD tend to develop the pathology before the age 65. The other familial-like AD is named late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD), this form is more common and complex. The complexity comes from the involvement of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors (Sun et al., 2017). The first discovered risk factor is the apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE ε4), this allele represents 50% of LOAD cases. APOE gene is on chromosome 19q13.2, the protein plays a role in cholesterol transport, delivery, and distribution. The three isoforms differ in sequence by two single nucleotides, rs429358 and rs7412 (Sun et al., 2017). The alternative isoforms have a different impact on Aβ. Researchers from the genome-wide sequencing studies have identified dozens of additional genes as risk factors. In a nonexhaustive manner, we can cite the involvement of CD33, Clathrin Assembly Lymphoid Myeloid leukemia (CALM), human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DRB5/DRB1, and complement receptor type 1 (CR1), which are associated to the immune system. Further studies identified the amyloid transporter ABCA7 (ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily A Member 7) gene on chromosome 19 (19p13.3) as another risk factor. A single-nucleotide polymorphism rs3764650 is found in 64% of LOAD cases (Sun et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2015).

The EOAD has a different impact on patients than LOAD, since EOAD patients have a better memory compared with those with LOAD. However, they have a greater attention deficit, executive functions, and ideomotor praxis (Mendez 2017). Conversely, brain imaging reveals that EOAD patients have a greater atrophy of parietal cortex with a preserved hippocampal volume compared with LOAD patients (Kaiser et al., 2012). Both forms present an equivalent atrophy level of temporoparietal-pecuneus, a region involved in self-consciousness, episodic memory, and executive function. Finally, EOAD patients present more neuritic plaques and neurofilament τ in this region (Mendez 2017).

So far, there is no efficient treatment of AD. Few drugs are available, but their effects remain marginal. The first class of drug is acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g., donepezil), which targets cholinergic neurons by inhibiting the degradation of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter important for the short-term memory mainly found in hippocampus (Boncristiano et al., 2002; Schliebs and Arendt 2011). The other drug on the market is an antagonist of NMDA receptors called memantine. This molecule is used to decrease the neuronal excitotoxity provoked by the excess of glutamate (Acharjee et al., 2018). These neurotransmitter regulators are supposed to relieve symptoms for a short-term period, but they cannot delay the progression of AD (P. Liu et al., 2019).

Aβ is clearly a hallmark of AD. The amyloid hypothesis is the most tested, since it represents 22.3% of all clinical trials up to 2019, followed by the neurotransmitter hypothesis representing 19%. Treatment strategies focusing on the Aβ hypothesis targeted either β- and γ-secretase, 2 proteolytic enzymes responsible of APP cleavage (Golde 2014) or amyloid deposits, using monoclonal antibodies. The vast majority of immunotherapy based treatments failed in phase III as solanezumab (Eli Lilly), Gantenerumab (Roche/Genentech), and Crenezumab (Roche/Genentech/Ac Immune). Antibodies successfully reduced Aβ burden but failed to delay or improve the cognitive decline (P. Liu et al., 2019). Moreover, antibody-based therapies caused cerebral hemorrhages associated with the secretion of inflammatory factors. Lately, a novel antibody-based treatment showed promising results with fewer side effects. The antibody named HAE-4 targets APOE4 gene in the AD mouse model 5XFAD-APOE4+/+. Xiong et al. (2021) demonstrated that HAE-4 does not exacerbate microhemorrhages and is efficient to decrease amyloid burden in the parenchyma and cerebral vessels (Xiong et al., 2021). Recently, Aducanumab (Biogen Idec) was partially approved by FDA not without debates. Indeed, the decision was based on results from a retrospective analysis made on a single trial (Ackley et al., 2021; Richard, den Brok, and van Gool 2021). Aducanumab, like other antibodies, has detrimental side effects (P. Liu et al., 2019; Walsh et al., 2021). This situation makes echo with the aforementioned therapies, namely acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and memantine, which were defunded in some countries since they failed to show evidence of clinical benefit (Walsh et al., 2021).

Other treatments aimed to inhibit β-secretase/BACE1 showed a reduction of Aβ in cerebrospinal fluid by 80%–90%. Here again, however, most of clinical trials failed in phase III, whereas some treatments even worsen cognitive decline and induced side effects (Doody et al., 2013; Honig et al., 2018; P. Liu et al., 2019). Antibody-based therapies allow to remove a great percentage of Aβ, suggesting that innate immunity can play a great role in AD and a direct modulation of immune cells could lead to better outcomes in regulating inflammation and Aβ phagocytosis.

II. Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy

Aβ can aggregate into various forms, as oligomers, protofibrils, and amyloid fibrils which can assemble into amyloid plaques (G. Chen et al., 2017). The role of amyloid plaques in the cognitive decline and the etiology of AD is now highly controversial, and recent studies suggest that they may just be a reservoir of amyloid peptides (Murphy and LeVine 2010; Esparza et al., 2018). Consequently, solely targeting them is not a good therapeutic strategy. AD is also characterized by an accumulation of amyloid in cerebral vasculature, named cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) (Brenowitz et al., 2015). In 2002, Jellinger estimated that 78%–98% of AD patients suffer of CAA (Jellinger 2002). Amyloid accumulation is found within the small- and medium-sized vessels, the Aβ deposition weakens the wall of vessels and leads to intracerebral hemorrhages and microbleeds, and these events accelerate AD (Pimentel-Coelho and Rivest 2012). Many factors may also cause changes in neurovasculature, such as hyperlipidemia. This condition is one of the most important since hypercholesterolemia increases the risk of AD by 3-fold. Moreover, a high level of cholesterol is correlated with a lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (Proitsi et al., 2014). It is interesting to note that, in the obesity context, adipose tissue is a source of inflammatory factors such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), interleukine-1 and 6 (IL-1 and IL-6). Inflammation can lead to Aβ accumulation and τ phosphorylation (Letra, Santana, and Seiça 2014). Additionally, hypertension has been identified as an aggravating factor in AD, it is associated with a degradation of cognitive function (Moonga et al., 2017). Several clinical trials have been conducted using (1) statins, these molecules are used to lower the blood cholesterol level or (2) antihypertensive medication as ramipril a specific angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; all of them failed to improve patient conditions (Wharton et al., 2012; Moonga et al., 2017).

Targeting amyloid deposits within vasculature remains interesting; the principal amyloid species accumulated in cerebral vessels is Aβ40 (Davis and Van Nostrand 1996). The balance between Aβ40–42 may help to predict where amyloid will be located. High 40/42 ratio determines a greater accumulation in cerebral blood vessels, whereas low ratio leads preferentially to the formation of parenchymal plaques (Herzig et al., 2006). In the 90s, Calhoun et al., (1999) proposed that a neuronal source of APP can induce a prominent amyloid deposition in cerebral blood vessels, although the exact mechanism remains elusive. Two hypotheses were proposed to explain such a phenomenon. The first one postulates that amyloid is transported through interstitial fluid efflux (Carare et al., 2013; Hawkes et al., 2014), and the origin of Aβ in blood vessels and parenchyma is the same. The second is proposing that Aβ is transported by cerebrospinal fluid influx and/or through specific transporters at the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The latter is clearly the most interesting, since the brain has transporter mediating the efflux of Aβ and results from other studies seem to corroborate it (Herzig et al., 2006; Yuan et al., 2020).

For this section, we will focus on two major transporters, namely ATP-binding cassette B1 (ABCB1) and low-density lipoprotein-related protein-1. In physiologic conditions, neurons produce amyloid, which is removed by different mechanisms such as phagocytose by glial cells, enzymatic degradation, and transport through the BBB. In AD, these mechanisms are impaired. ABC transporters are using ATP as a source of energy; the subfamilies B, C, and G can remove toxic molecules from the brain to the blood (Qi and Ma, 2017). One of the most studied is ABCB1, also known as multi-drug resistance gene (MDR) 1/P-gp. Its expression decreases with aging and CAA conditions. Some reports revealed that ABCB1 is involved in Aβ removal. The mode of interaction between amyloid and ABCB1 is unclear, different possibilities have been elaborated the past years: 1) ABCB1 can directly bind Aβ and transport it, or 2) ABCB1 interacts with amyloid but is not involved in its transport. The latter case raises the possibility that MDR1 may anchor the Aβ preventing uptake into endothelial cells, or ABCB1 can transport degradation products of amyloid (F. C. Lam et al., 2001; Sita et al., 2017). It is well established that expression of ABCB1 is sensitive to amyloid. In vitro models have shown that Aβ40 and 42 downregulates ABCB1 in the vasculature. Amyloid induces the ubiquitination of the transporter leading to its internalization and degradation by the proteasome (Hartz et al., 2016). Depending on the mechanism, ABCB1 is crucial to transport Aβ out of the brain, since the pharmacological blockade of this transporter drastically decreases the amyloid efflux (F.C. Lam et al., 2001; Hartz, Miller, and Bauer 2010; ElAli and Rivest 2013; Sita et al., 2017).

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are common to many CNS disorders, and ABCB1 is also sensitive to oxidative stress. However, the impact of ROS on ABCB1 expression is controversial, and some studies reported that ROS may promote endothelial cell survival by increasing ABCB1 expression. On other hand, ROS may lead to lipid peroxidation, and the latter is involved in BBB degradation, resulting in a decrease in ABCB1 expression (Sita et al., 2017, 1; Hartz, Miller, and Bauer 2010).

The other transporter is LRP1, a fast endocytic receptor mediating the trafficking and the degradation of more than 40 ligands, including Aβ (Shinohara et al., 2017). As ABCB1, its expression is decreased with aging and AD (Kang et al., 2000). However, LRP1 functions seem complex, the signaling downstream might impact the phagocytic abilities of cells. It has been reported that LRP1 is a modulator of cytoskeleton dynamic via the focal adhesion kinase/paxillin/phosphoinositide 3-kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathways (Dedieu and Langlois 2008; Shinohara et al., 2017). To further understand the role of this receptor, researchers developed a selective deletion model of LRP1 within brain endothelial cells in 5xFAD mice exploiting the specific expression of thyroxine transporter Slcolcl in brain endothelial cells by engineering a Cre/lox mouse (Slcolcl-CreERT2 LRP1fl/fl). The knockout of LRP1 in AD mice is associated with a decrease in plasmatic Aβ, an increase in soluble brain amyloid and a greater cognitive decline (Storck et al., 2016). These results highlight the importance of LRP1 in the Aβ clearance through the BBB.

Interestingly, Storck et al. (2018) proposed that amyloid removal by LRP1 and ABCB1 is linked by PICALM. Using immunoprecipitation experiments and inhibition of both ABCB1 and LRP1, they have shown that both transporters are functionally linked, meaning that the expression of one transporter influences the other. Indeed, a knockout of LRP1 in brain endothelium leads to a drastic diminution of ABCB1 expression. Moreover, the LOAD risk factor PICALM (Phosphatidylinositol Binding Clathrin Assembly Protein) is also associated with ABCB1 and LRP1 expression. It plays a functional link is guiding both proteins through brain endothelium. These results provide a better comprehension on the mechanisms mediating the Aβ transport across the BBB.

Many studies have documented the strong association between CAA and AD. CAA is thought to have a greater clinical impact than AD alone (Jellinger 2002; Thal et al., 2003; Brenowitz et al., 2015). However, the exact mechanism underlaying the CAA onset remains elusive, and further studies are required to better understand it. After more than a decade of clinical trials, a treatment remains far ahead, and the pathology is still not well understood. The therapeutic strategy has now changed, and scientists are now focusing their efforts on the innate immune system. A growing number of evidence shows that the modulation of such cells could be a more effective therapy against AD than the previous ones. Indeed, monocytes and microglia are of great interest and we and many others believe that a proper stimulation of these cells with specific ligands targeting three families of receptors could have promising therapeutic properties to prevent and delay AD.

III. Innate Immune System

The innate immune system is a well conserved host defense system. Leukocytes act as sensor and effector cells. They can initiate the immune response and therefore becoming activated in response to tissue injury, infection, or stress (Gasteiger et al., 2017). This immune system comprises a broad range of cells originating from the hematopoietic system, such as monocytes and monocyte-derived cells, natural killer cells, and granulocytes. Innate immune cells can recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) or damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) via evolutionarily conserved structures named pattern recognition receptors (PRRS) (Akira 2006). PRRs family is composed of toll-like receptors family (TLRs), C-type lectin receptor, NOD-like receptors, retinoic acid-inducible receptors, I-like receptors and DNA sensors. Once activated, PRRs mediate proinflammatory signals (Mogensen 2009). Signalization through TLRs activates a complex intracellular signaling cascade leading to the activation of transcription factors such as AP-1, NF-κB or IRF3. Some DAMPs and PAMPs can be recognized by one PRR, e.g., TLR4, suggesting similarities between DAMPs and PAMPs regarding the inflammatory response (L. Chen et al., 2017).

Monocytes and microglia belong to the innate immune system, but they do not have the same common progenitors. Indeed, three distinct hematopoietic programs drive the development of microglia, tissue-resident MP, and monocyte-derived MP (Hoeffel and Ginhoux 2018). Both types of immune cells are deeply involved in AD onset and progression (Rossi et al., 2021; Heneka 2020; Ní et al., 2020). The last decade, inflammation was thought to be the main cause of AD, but neuroinflammation is now seen as a consequence of AD rather than a cause (Kinney et al., 2018).

IV. Development of Monocytic Lineage

Monocytes are innate immune cells that are produced in the bone marrow. They have multiple roles and participate to tissue development, defense, and homeostasis. They also initiate and resolve the inflammatory reaction (Wolf et al., 2019). Monocytes arise in the fetal liver from the late yolk sac-derived erythromyeloid progenitors during the last wave of hematopoiesis (Hoeffel and Ginhoux 2018). Immature hematopoietic stem cells colonize and settle into the fetal liver. The latter is a major hematopoietic organ for the development of the immune system. Then, hematopoietic stem cells invade the bone marrow and become fully functional after birth (Wolf et al., 2019). Monocytic lineage formation and differentiation are under the control of transcription factors such as runt-related transcription factor 1 (RUNX1), C/EBPβ, PU.1 (purine-rich box 1), and interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) and the cytokine IL-34 and macrophage colony stimulating factor (mCSF) (Dahl et al., 2003, 1). PU.1 is a major regulator of cells of myeloid lineage (Friedman 2007). It binds to the DNA site 5′-AAAG(A/C/G)GGAAG-3′ via the C-term domain and activates the transcription through the N-term domain and acidic domain (Klemsz et al., 1990). PU.1 is required to induce the development of microglia and monocytes. PU.1 influences the fate of progenitor cells in a dose-dependent manner. Dahl et al. (2003) have found that a higher expression of PU.1 favors monocytic over granulocytic development, whereas PU.1+/− favors neutrophil lineage. The phosphorylation of PU.1 allows interaction with IRF8, then the molecular complex binds to an Ets/IRF element containing a GGAA PU.1 site and induces the monocyte lineage gene program (Yáñez and Goodridge 2016). IRF8−/− or PU.1−/− mice present a drastic diminution of macrophages, resident macrophages and monocytes (Friedman 2007).

The classic model of myeloid cell production in the bone marrow follows different stages; multipotent hematopoietic stem cells, a subgroup of hematopoietic stem cells give rise to clonogenic progenitors named common lymphoid progenitors and common myeloid progenitors. The latter are under control of runt-related transcription factor 1 (RUNX1), PU.1, and IRF8 and give rise to megakaryocyte-erythrocyte progenitors and granulocyte and macrophages progenitors (GMPs). MDPs derive from GMPs, the latter are critical for monocyte production. The maturation of GMPs to MDPs is under the control of PU.1, IRF8, and GATA (guanine-adenine-thymine-adenine) 2 (Y. P. Zhu, Thomas, and Hedrick 2016). Lately, the common monocyte progenitor population (cMoP) has been discovered. These cells arise from MDPs driven by PU.1 and IRF8. cMoP is the last stage before fully functional monocytes. This ultimate maturation is driven by PU.1, IRF8, KLF4, and C/EBPβ that give rise to the classic monocyte subset. Within the three different populations, classic monocytes are the most abundant subset in blood. The two others are nonclassic also named patrolling monocytes and intermediate monocytes. cMoP and MDPs can give rise to patrolling monocyte subset, but the exact mechanism remains unclear. Of interest, classic monocytes can switch to patrolling monocytes and such a transformation involves the transcription factor Nr4a1/Nur77, C/EBPβ, c-Jun. These factors interact with AP-1 and binds to the DNA site 5′-TGA(C/G)TCA-3,’ although further studies are needed to unravel the exact transcriptional processes involved in monocyte conversion (Wolf et al., 2019; Y. P. Zhu, Thomas, and Hedrick 2016).

V. The Role of Monocytes

Monocytes are very plastic and potent cells; they respond to stress, injury, and infection by bacteria or viruses since they express a large variety of cell surface molecules such as PRRs. The expression of these markers varies depending on monocyte subsets (Thériault, ElAli, and Rivest 2015; Kapellos et al., 2019). Different phenotypes have been identified so far using flow cytometry and intravital microscopy approaches. Populations differ from each other by the level expression of surface markers such as CD115, CD14, and CD16 in human and CD115, CD45, CCR2, CX3CR1, and Ly6C in mouse (Ginhoux et al., 2013). Human classic monocytes are defined by the expression of CD14++CD16-, the intermediate CD14+, CD16+ HLA-DR+CD86+CD11c+ with a distinct transcriptomic profile (LYZ, S100A8, CD14, CD74, HLD-DRA, HLA-DPB1 and CPV), and the nonclassic CD14+/−CD16++ (Ginhoux and Jung 2014). In mice, the distinction between populations is based on Ly6C expression level. Proinflammatory/classic monocytes CX3CR1-CCR2+Ly6C+ contribute to inflammatory response and can infiltrate the tissue. The patrolling/nonclassic subset CX3CR1+, CCR2-, Ly6C-LFA-1+ patrols into vasculature are able to phagocyte amyloid peptides, regulate the inflammation, and stimulate tissue repair (Rossi et al., 2021). We can also distinguish an intermediate monocyte population in mice characterized by Ly6int, however, this population has not been fully characterized yet (Sprangers et al., 2016). Classic and patrolling monocytes in human and mouse functions are quite similar.

Classic monocytes are well known to respond rapidly to infection or injury. They arise from the bone marrow and are released to the circulation in a CCR2-dependent manner. They can infiltrate different tissues, which then differentiate into macrophages or dendritic cells. They participate actively to the inflammatory response and the production of a wide range of cytokines, chemokines, adhesion molecules, and many other secreted molecules. They have the ability to do so since they express at a high-level critical innate immune receptor namely TLR4, TREM1, CCR2, NLRP3, and many others (Anbazhagan et al., 2014).

Patrolling monocyte subset is of great interest, since they can modulate the inflammation, scan the vasculature, and scavenge particles. The unique patrolling behavior of nonclassic monocytes highly depends on the interaction of LFA-1 with the wall of blood vessels (Narasimhan et al., 2019). TLR7 activation seems to increase the retention time of these monocytes on the endothelium (Imai and Yasuda 2016). Patrolling monocytes have a different gene signature compared with inflammatory monocytes. Indeed, patrolling monocytes express a high level of genes involved in cytoskeletal dynamics CDC42 effector protein-4, creatine kinase B and EML4 as well as corresponding receptors, such as CX3CR1, CD115, and Siglec10. Intriguingly, nonclassic monocytes do not produce ROS suggesting that they do not directly participate to the inflammation.

VI. Microglia Development and Role

Microglia are the resident macrophages of the CNS, they originate from the yolk sac, and are derived from the peripheral mesodermal tissue, the mechanisms underlying the microglia colonization, and differentiation has been recently unraveled (Prinz and Mildner 2011; Baufeld et al., 2018). In rodents, CD45-CD117+ erythromyeloid precursors from the yolk sac through the blood circulation settle and colonize the mesenchyma surrounding the neural tube at E8. Around E9.5, progenitor cells repress the expression of CD117 and express CX3CR1 (Lenz and Nelson 2018). The latter is involved in the communication between microglia and neurons. At this point, microglia progenitors infiltrate the neuroectoderm using metalloproteinases, a family of enzymes involved in the remodeling of extracellular matrix components (Kierdorf et al., 2013). As their monocyte counterparts, the development and the survival of microglia progenitors depend on CSF1R, PU.1, and IRF8 (Kierdorf et al., 2013; Lenz and Nelson 2018). CSF1R can bind two ligands, namely mCSF and IL-34, and it has been demonstrated that IL-34 is the predominant ligand of CSF1R during the development (Boulakirba et al., 2018). The cortex in mouse is colonized by microglia at E11.5, the first aggregate is seen at the pial surface and within the lateral ventricles (Swinnen et al., 2013). Then, microglia spread throughout the cortical wall (Low and Ginhoux 2018). The colonization of brain by microglial cells is a multiple-step process, this progression is similar in both mouse and human. The first phase is called tangential migration, ameboid microglia move parallel to the brain surface, the second phase is named radial migration, during this step microglia change direction to move into regions of parenchyma (Cuadros and Navascués 2001). After the brain colonization, microglia maturate and proliferate; the shape of microglial cells changes from ameboid to ramified, which is partly dependent on astrocyte-derived factors, namely mCSF/IL-34, TGF-β2, and cholesterol (Bohlen et al., 2017). Microglia proliferate until the fourteenth postnatal day in rodents, and after having reached the peak of proliferation, the number of microglia slowly decreases to adult levels (I. Kim et al., 2015). Importantly, neither CX3CR1, CCR2, CCR1, CX3CR3, or their ligands or DAP12 are essential for the survival and the development of embryonic microglia. However, DAP12 is crucial during adulthood for survival and homeostatic functions of microglia in several brain regions (Kierdorf et al., 2013).

Microglia signature differs from a healthy and a pathologic CNS. In the last decade, microglial phenotypes were characterized according to the differential expression of cell surface receptors, or the expression of cytokines. The nomenclature has distinguished different phenotypes. M1, a proinflammatory/neurotoxic profile, and the M2, which was described as an anti-inflammatory phenotype participating in the resolution of inflammation, although this is a simplistic view of the complex physiology of microglia (Ransohoff 2016). Newly developed technics, including RNA-sequencing, epigenetic studies, bioinformatics, and quantitative proteomics helped to better understand and characterize microglial diversity in rodents and humans (Hickman et al., 2013; Gosselin et al., 2017; Butovsky and Weiner 2018; Olah et al., 2018).

Interestingly, there is a unique transcriptional signature in microglia of healthy adult mouse with the main expression of purinoreceptor P2ry12, Tmem119, sialic acid binding Ig-like lectin H, suppressor of cytokine signaling 3, olfactomedin-like protein 3 and Fc receptor-like S a scavenger receptor (Satoh et al., 2016; C. Zhu et al., 2017; Zrzavy et al., 2017). A similar transcriptional signature has been observed in the human brain, especially for P2yr12 and Tmem119 (Prinz et al., 2017). Microglia are essential for synaptic pruning during the development and adulthood, and they are required for shaping neuronal networks (Szepesi et al., 2018). As immune cells, they are capable of phagocyting synapses, and synaptic pruning involves complement protein C1q and CR3. Inhibition of complement molecules reduces the number of phagocytic microglia and triggers synaptic loss (Butovsky and Weiner 2018; Rivest 2018). The synaptic loss is associated with the cognitive decline in AD, which may also depend on the complement cascade together with amyloid plaques (Hong et al., 2016). Microglia reactivity changes during the progression AD and such a dysregulation could contribute to the physiopathology of the disease.

Microglia serve as a trophic support for brain cells, since they have the ability to produce brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), neurotrophin 3, nerve growth factor (NGF) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) (Pons and Rivest 2020). Interestingly, the latter is produced by an ITGAX-expressing microglial subset in the developing brain (Wlodarczyk et al., 2017). These neurotrophic factors are essential for the brain development and repair, and it was shown that microglia promote learning-dependent synapse formation through BDNF (Parkhurst et al., 2013). The presence of Aβ alters the homeostatic phenotype of microglial cells and the inflammatory environment interferes with memory consolidation and secretion of neurotrophic factors (Giuffrida, Copani, and Rizzarelli 2018). Further studies have demonstrated that patients become resistant to IGF-1, which may contribute to the cognitive decline (Talbot et al., 2012; Westwood et al., 2014; Galle et al., 2019). Expression levels of NGF and TrkA are increased in mild cognitive impairment and mild AD patients, although a reduction of both molecules is observed in severe AD. As NGF and despite conflicting reports, BDNF level is also decreased in AD (Buchman et al., 2016; Crispoltoni et al., 2017; Sampaio et al., 2017). In conclusion, microglia have the ability to secrete numerous growth factors in the brain of healthy individuals, but they seem to lose such properties in the course of AD.

VII. Modulation of the Innate Immune System in AD

In the past two decades, a large body of evidence has underlined a critical role of the innate immune system in AD. Years ago, the research was focused on understanding the contribution of inflammatory response to the disease process, whereas the past decade was dedicated to take advantage of such a system to delay AD progression and to treat patients. In the following sections, we will focus on the powerful neuroprotective effects of a series of molecules that can trigger the immune response in AD. Some of them may soon be used in AD patients and individuals at risk of developing the disease.

VIII. Targeting the mCSF/CSFS1R Axis

Microglia interact directly with Aβ via PRRs. On the front line, microglial cells use class A scavenger receptor, CD36, CD14, CD47, TLR2-4-6, and 9. Upon binding amyloid, receptors initiate cell activation and phagocytic pathways (Bloom 2014; Fan et al., 2019). Once internalized, amyloid peptides trigger endosomal and lysosomal pathways. However, a question remains controversial about the intracellular degradation of amyloid. Contradictory studies showed that, in one hand, cultured primary mouse microglia release fibrillary amyloid after internalization (Chung et al., 1999), whereas in other, they can keep Aβ for weeks without degrading it (Paresce, Chung, and Maxfield 1997). In 2007, Majumbar et al. (2007) proposed that microglia have to be properly activated to efficiently degrade amyloid. They showed that mCSF-stimulated microglia are prone to degrade Aβ due to the lysosomal acidification induced by the cytokine. CSF1R also named CD115 is a tyrosine kinase receptor encoded by c-fms proto-oncogene (Chitu and Stanley 2006). The receptor is highly expressed by myeloid lineage cells and is involved in the development, activation, and survival of these cells. Recently, genetic variants of CD115 have been identified in AD patients, and these mutations are strongly associated with LOAD (Sassi et al., 2018; Martin-Estebane and Gomez-Nicola 2020). Boissonneault et al. (2009) confirmed in 2013 in vivo the results found by Majumbar et al. They administered mCSF weekly in APPswe/PSEN1 mice from 3-month-old to 6 or 9-month-old and found a powerful effect of mCSF on the progression of AD. mCSF-treated animals displayed a reduced cognitive decline and less amyloid burden (Fig. 1).

On the clinical side, the cytokine is promising, because animals did not exhibit noticeable side effects despite the repeated injections. The cytokine acts on microglia and monocytes by stimulating their proliferation in the cortex and hippocampus followed by a massive infiltration of CCR2+ monocytes. However, there is no evidence that CSF1R is directly involved in the recruitment of monocytes (Pons et al., 2020). Interestingly, breeding CCR2-deficient mice with APP animals exacerbated amyloid deposition, worsened the cognitive decline, and reduced the number of infiltrating monocytes (El Khoury et al., 2007). Further studies showed that CCL2/CCR2 axis is impaired in monocytes from AD patients resulting in a lack of migration toward the parenchyma, suggesting an important role of classic monocytes in AD (Guedes et al., 2015). Moreover, some studies reported that bone marrow–derived cells (BMDM) are more efficient to clear amyloid than resident microglia. mCSF-stimulated microglia secrete CCL2 to recruit monocytes, which involves adhesion factors such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and their counterparts on the endothelium, VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 (Li, Chen, and Zhang 2020). Once into the parenchyma, monocytes differentiate into microglia-like cells. BMDM and resident microglia are slightly different, however, the mechanism of differentiation need to be determined. BMDM express higher levels of MHC class II, a greater ability to clear Aβ and a reduced production of ROS (Jin et al., 2017). BMDM can be distinguished from microglia by the expression of CCR2, since this receptor is absent in all CNS cell types (Mizutani et al., 2012). In the same line, Kawanishi et al. (2018) have demonstrated that mCSF-treated BMDM once injected within the mouse hippocampus migrate toward amyloid and phagocyte Aβ, resulting in decreased number of amyloid plaques compared with their littermate-controls. These results show that the stimulation of CSF1R in AD triggers microglia activation and monocyte differentiation toward amyloid deposits and ameliorate the physiopathology of AD in mice. Further study by Delaney et al. (2021) showed that depletion in CSF1R signaling induces BBB disruption and decreases the phagocytic capacity of peripheral macrophages, whereas it has no effects on microglia. Our laboratory has also demonstrated such effect on microglia after CSF1R deletion in a recent study. We have reported in APP mice after the conditional deletion of CSF1R a decrease in the volume of amyloid plaques in hippocampus and cortex associated with a cognitive improvement in APP-CSF1R−/− mice compared with the APP control mice. Besides, our study also confirmed results found by Delaney et al. regarding the impairment of the peripheral immunity. We observed a maintained expression of ABCB1 in knockout mice associated with an increased number of Aβ-positive vessels and a higher concentration of Aβ40 into the vasculature suggesting an exacerbation of CAA at 8-month-old in APP-CSF1R−/− mice, probably caused by a monocyte defect (Pons et al., 2021). Interestingly, we have also observed in CSF1R−/− mice an upregulation of IL-34 at 6-month-old suggesting a potential role of this cytokine in AD.

IL-34 is the second ligand binding to CSF1R and has a great interest regarding the modulation of innate immunity (Ma et al., 2012). The cytokine was first shown to be important for the maintenance and differentiation of adult microglia. Mizuno et al. (2011) showed that IL-34–treated microglia decreased the neurotoxic effect of Aβ and promoted phagocytose and degradation of amyloid peptides in a neuron-microglia coculture system. The neuroprotective effect of IL-34 treatment appears to be driven by the upregulation TGF-β1. The latter prevents microglia activation and proliferation in vitro and in vivo. It is important to mention that blocking the anti-inflammatory cytokine TGF-β was also found to exacerbate AD-like symptoms through inhibiting the phagocytic properties of microglia and monocytes (Town et al., 2008). The exact mechanism is partially understood, some studies reported that TGF-β1 suppresses interferon-γ signaling by reducing STAT1 phosphorylation via the overexpression of MAPK phosphatase-1, thereby negatively regulating ERK and p38 (Takaki et al., 2006; Herrera-Molina et al., 2012; Kaplan 2013; Zhou et al., 2015). IL-34 signaling pathways are complex, some actions are overlapping with mCSF, notably its action on immune cells. The main difference resides on the production of chemokines. IL-34–stimulated cells express less ICAM-1, MCP-1, and more HLA-DR and eotaxin-2 (CCL24), a molecule that binds CCR3 to stimulate the recruitment of eosinophils and neutrophils (Chihara et al., 2010; Guillonneau, Bézie, and Anegon 2017). Additionally, IL-34 can bind 3 receptors, namely CSF1R, Syndecan-1, and PTP-ζ that complexify the study and the understanding of this cytokine. Further studies are needed to understand the basic mechanisms mediating the great therapeutic potential of CSF1R ligands in AD.

It is interesting to note similar outcomes by either impeding or enhancing CSF1R signaling in AD, it appears to be contradictory, and both seem to be beneficial for the disease for different reasons (Majumdar et al., 2007; Boissonneault et al., 2009; Mizuno et al., 2011; Chitu et al., 2016; Kawanishi et al., 2018; Delaney et al., 2021; Pons et al., 2021). We deliberately omitted to talk about the supposedly beneficial effect of CSF1R small-molecule inhibitors named PLX on AD. The debate is vivid between researchers about the interpretation of results. Some argue that PLXs affect solely microglia and have a minimal effect on peripheral cells, although a growing number of evidence shows that molecules impact the periphery even in on a short period (Lei et al., 2021, 2020; Delaney et al., 2021).

IX. Triggering Patrolling Monocytes to Clear Vascular Aβ

The nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain 2 (NOD2) belongs to the PRRs subfamily NOD-like receptors (Negroni et al., 2018). It is a cytosolic receptor able to detect a component of the bacterial wall, namely muramyl dipeptide (MDP) (Kawai and Akira 2009). A NOD2 mutation or altered expression is involved in chronic inflammatory disorders, such as Crohn disease, Blau syndrome, and early onset sarcoidosis (Ogura et al., 2001; Kanazawa et al., 2005; Dugan et al., 2015). Upon MDP liaison to NOD2, the latter undergoes an oligomerization and recruits downstream molecules, such as RIP2 (also known as RICK), Ripk2, and CCK. Once activated, RIP2 leads to the ubiquitination of NF-κB, followed by the activation of IKK, then IKK complex phosphorylates the inhibitor of NF-κB, resulting in the translocation to the nucleus of NF-κB (Park et al., 2007). NF-κB participates in the control of transcription of over 150 target genes (Pahl 1999). The last decade, a vivid debate animated the scientific community about the potential role of MDP-activated NOD2 on inflammation (Ogura et al., 2001; G. Kim et al., 2011; Coulombe et al., 2012; Philpott et al., 2014). Lately, Lessard et al. (2017) have demonstrated that MDP-stimulated NOD2 converts inflammatory monocytes into patrolling monocytes in a Nr4a1 (Nur77)-dependent manner. Nur77 is an orphan nuclear receptor belonging to Nur77 family containing Nurr-1 and Nur77 is involved in various biologic processes such as apoptosis, brain development, and metabolism (Yoon and Lau 1993). So far, no ligand has been identified for this family. The expression of Nur77 is regulated by CREB, and Nur77 gene contains four copies of a CRE that bind CREB and two sites for MEF2 factors. Mechanistically, AP-1 and CREB transcription factors bind and activate Nur77 (B. Y. H. Lam et al., 2010). The monocytic switch from classic to nonclassic phenotype after NOD2 stimulation is not fully understood, several studies used Nur77−/− mice to decipher the role of the transcription factor. The most interesting study is from Hanna et al. (2011). They have demonstrated that mice lacking Nur77 have a defect in production of patrolling monocytes. The poor number of patrolling monocytes that remains in the bone marrow seems to be enabled to proliferate properly. They also showed that Nur77-deficient patrolling monocytes are blocked in the S phase of the cell cycle and undergo apoptosis, suggesting Nr4a1 is absolutely needed for the production of patrolling monocytes (Hanna et al., 2011).

Little is known about the migration, the transformation, and the recruitment of nonclassic monocytes to the vascular amyloid. CCR5 might be partially involved in the recruitment of Ly6C-. The blockade of CCR5 leads to a 40% reduction in the number of patrolling monocytes at the site in a model of atherosclerosis. However, CCR5 is poorly expressed on these monocytes raising the question about the real impact of such receptor on the recruitment of Ly6C- monocytes (Thomas et al., 2015). Despite the little number of studies on the role of patrolling monocytes in AD, it seems important to highlight the strong therapeutic potential of this subset. Michaud et al. (2013) used intravital two-photon microscopy to functionally assess the role of Ly6C- monocytes in the brain vasculature of APP mice. They have demonstrated that patrolling monocytes are specifically attracted onto the luminal wall of Aβ-positive veins and, interestingly, these monocytes are not active in Aβ-positive arteries or Aβ-free blood vessels. The specific removal of vascular Aβ by Ly6C- leads to a significant decrease of amyloid plaques in hippocampus and cortex area. This study shed the light on the role of such monocytes, suggesting that the increase of the latter in AD could be an interesting therapeutic avenue (Michaud et al., 2013). Patrolling monocytes have a greater ability to phagocyte compared with classic monocytes, and they produce fewer proinflammatory cytokines upon stimulation with LPS, as they express lower levels of CD14 (a coreceptor of TLR4) (Cros et al., 2010). The phagocytic mechanism seems to be dependent on LFA-1-ICAM-1/VCAM-1, since antibodies against them block the uptake of altered red blood cells (Y. Liu et al., 2019).

Increasing the number of patrolling monocytes into the vasculature is quite interesting in AD, since clearing the amyloid associated to blood vessels could lead to an amyloid efflux from the brain to the vasculature, a mechanism called the sink effect (Fig. 2). It rests on the hypothesis that amyloid in the brain and periphery are in equilibrium, meaning that removing Aβ into blood vessels could lead to a passive or active diffusion of amyloid from the brain to the vasculature (Bell 2012; DeMattos et al., 2001). As far as we know, the only study using MDP as a treatment of AD has been done by our team. Fani Maleki and colleagues injected mice with MDP to increase patrolling monocytes in blood vessels, as they wanted to prove that the switch of monocytic population from inflammatory to patrolling improves the condition of APP mice. The treatment started at 3 months of age before the appearance of symptoms to 6-month-old. We proved that repeated injections of MDP can maintain a high level of patrolling monocytes for at least 3 months, without any harmful effects on mice. We showed an improvement in memory function associated with a delayed synaptic loss. Of interest, expression of the amyloid transporter LRP1 was increased, suggesting that Aβ is transported to the blood vessels, where patrolling monocytes can scavenge it (Fani Maleki et al., 2020). Further studies have to be made to fully understand the mechanism underlaying these encouraging results. Patrolling monocytes are of interest due to their capacity to phagocyte amyloid and by their abilities to mediate neuroprotection in an excitotoxic environment after sterile inflammation triggered by kainate, a conformational analog of glutamate. Monocytes migrated toward CNS and accumulated specifically near the excitotoxic injury. Monocytes underwent a differentiation into microglia-like cells and strongly expressed Iba1 and CD68 7 days postinjury. Authors deleted CX3CR1 in mice and they observed a diminution in level of patrolling monocytes in the blood 24 hours postinjection of kainite. Additionally, they also found a specific elimination of patrolling monocytes using Nur77−/−chimeric mice, suggesting a protective role of nonclassic monocyte subset in this mouse model of neuronal injury (Bellavance et al., 2015).

Interestingly, besides the beneficial effect of patrolling monocytes on inflammation, tissue repair and phagocytose, monocytes can recruit neutrophils under some circumstance. Neutrophils are an emerging player in AD. This population of immune cells are highly reactive, and they can adapt their phenotype and function in response to environmental stimuli (Ng, Ostuni, and Hidalgo 2019; Rossi et al., 2021). New evidence show that patrolling monocytes can recruit and retain neutrophils, since CX3CR1- and Nr4a1-deficient mice display a reduced number of neutrophil recruitment (Carlin et al., 2013). Neutrophils are involved in AD pathology, and they are recruited to the vasculature and the brain. A selective inhibition of these cells leads to a cognitive improvement and a decrease of neuropathological features of AD (Pietronigro et al., 2017). Neutrophils are potentially harming the BBB and neural cells via extracellular traps in the brain and blood vessels of AD mice. A recent study has found that accumulation of such leukocyte subset into the brain vasculature alters the blood flow in different AD mouse models, namely APP/PS1 and 5xFAD (Cruz Hernández et al., 2019). A study has shown that cell-cell contacts can promote intravascular activation and exacerbates the production of inflammatory molecules during acute inflammation (Finsterbusch et al., 2016).

However, the interaction between patrolling monocytes and neutrophils and the role of such interaction is not clear in AD, and it will require further studies to elucidate whether patrolling monocytes can drive the neutrophil response and how this is done.

X. Targeting TLR4

TLRs are a family of surface receptors on innate immune cells, specialized in the detection of PAMPs and DAMPs able to trigger cell activation (Akira 2006). TLR4 was the first PRR of the family to be identified in humans. The latter can sense PAMPs such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and a large variety of DAMPs like HMGB1, metabolites from ROS, extracellular matrix destruction products, and amyloid (Cruz Hernández et al., 2019). TLR4 signaling pathways are complex and have been thoroughly reviewed by (Akira 2006). Briefly, MD-2 and CD14 are two extracellular molecules required to mediate the signal. Upon TLR4 activation, MyD88 mediates the activation of IL-1 receptor–associated kinases (IRAKs) and TNF receptor–associated factor 6 (TRAF6). This is followed by the activation of the IKK complex and the translocation of NF-κB into the nucleus leading to the transcription of numerous inflammatory genes (Kawai and Akira 2009). Additionally, TRAF6 activates ERK, JNK and p38, which participate to the inflammatory response and phagocytose, since TLR4 can induce the expression of the scavenger receptor SR-A, MARCO and LOX-1 in a MyD88-IRAK4 and p38-dependent manner (Doyle et al., 2004).

In the brain, TLR4 is mainly expressed by microglia, although other cell types have been shown to respond to LPS and endogenous TLR4 ligands. Microglial cells strongly express TLR4 when surrounding amyloid plaques in mouse models of AD and AD patients, which also exhibited higher expression levels of several inflammatory mediators compared with healthy controls (Fig. 3) (Minoretti et al., 2006; Walter et al., 2007; Calvo-Rodriguez et al., 2020). Of interest, both detrimental and beneficial roles of TLR4 have been reported in AD (Fiebich et al., 2018). A defect in TLR4 activation has been identified as a risk factor for AD in humans. Indeed, Asp299Gly polymorphism or mutations are associated with a reduced inflammatory response and a more pronounced pathology (Minoretti et al., 2006; Tahara et al., 2006; Paudel et al., 2020). These results were reproduced in AD mice lacking TLR4, as these animals presented a reduced microglial activation associated with a greater cognitive decline and an increased level of amyloid (Song et al., 2011). These data suggest a central role of TLR4 in AD and amyloid uptake. However, a conflicting study reports that a selective TLR4 antagonist or a knockout had no effect on memory loss or microglia activation after intracerebral injection of amyloid (Balducci et al., 2017). LPS-induced different outcomes depending on the route of administration, the dose, the duration, and the age (Nazem et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2019), underling the importance of the model and treatment in the interpretation of the data (Bardou et al., 2014).

LPS injections exacerbated the physiopathology in APP sweTg and 3xTg-AD mice, as authors found an increase in amyloid production and tau hyperphosphorylation (Sheng et al., 2003; Kitazawa et al., 2005; Zhan, Stamova, and Sharp 2018). Chronic exposure to LPS is also detrimental in patients and AD mouse models, since it leads to an overproduction of inflammatory cytokines, and these molecules were proposed to mediate the increase of Aβ deposits along with BBB disruption (Y. Wang et al., 2015; Chang, Yee, and Sumbria 2017; Martini et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019).

Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) is a TLR4 agonist derived from LPS, both molecules share many immunomodulatory properties exception made on the induction of a strong proinflammatory response. MPL is 100-fold less pyrogenic than LPS and is a weak inducer of TNF-α, IL-1β and CCL2 (Rego et al., 2016). Importantly, MPL is safe for humans, since it is used as adjuvant in several vaccines, e.g., Cervavix and Fendrix, (Q. Wang et al., 2020; Baldrick et al., 2002). LPS-activated TLR4 drives the immune response via MyD88 and TRIF. MyD88 pathway is activated at the plasma membrane, whereas TRIF-dependent pathway is activated when TLR4 is internalized into endosomes (Kagan et al., 2008; Tanimura et al., 2008). Conversely, MPL barely stimulates TLR4, this altered activation is correlated with a decrease of CD14-dependent TNF-α production, IFNβ induction and an upregulation of CD86. Tanimura et al. (2014) have suggested that MPL fails to induce a proinflammatory signal due to a lack of CD14/MyD88 response at the plasma membrane.

Our laboratory was the first to use MPL as a preventive therapeutic tool against AD, and in this study, we have demonstrated the beneficial role of MPL in a mouse model of AD. Michaud et al. (2013) have administered MPL once a week for 12 consecutive weeks in AD mice from 3 months old to 6 months old. They have reported that MPL-stimulated microglia and monocytes displayed a greater ability to phagocyte amyloid compared with LPS, this is mainly due to a better activation of p38/SR-A in microglia and monocytes by MPL. The reactivation of this pathway by MPL seems to be important in the disease since SR-A expression is altered in AD patients and APP mice (Michaud et al., 2013; Cornejo et al., 2018). Additionally, MPL triggers a robust monocytopoiesis. Consequently, the production of monocytes, a restored phagocytic ability and a weak induction of inflammatory response is beneficial for AD mice (Michaud et al., 2013). These results suggest that a proper activation could lead to improve the physiopathology of AD (Shaftel et al., 2007; Birch, Katsouri, and Sastre 2014; Chakrabarty et al., 2015; Businaro et al., 2018).

Lately, Pourbadie et al. (2018) used a low dose of either LPS or MPL to properly prime myeloid cells. They found that priming microglia with low dose of TLR4 agonists abolished the tolerance of microglia toward amyloid and prevented impairment of cognition and reduced amyloid burden in brain. Agonist-stimulated microglia displayed a mild inflammatory response with a downregulation of TNF-α expression in the group injected with LPS, but not in MPL-treated rats. Such a modulation is associated with an increase in IL-10, arginase-1 and TGF-1β expression in all groups. Interestingly, MPL and LPS have different outcomes regarding the plaque number since authors have found a lower number of plaques in MPL-treated animals (Pourbadie et al., 2018). These results suggest that different effects of agonists on the cellular response may be due to the different TLR4 signaling pathways triggered by both analogs.

In the same line, Yousefi et al. (2019) found that the pretreatment in vivo and in vitro with a low dose of LPS or MPL increases the expression of the neuroprotective cytokine IFN-β. The latter seems necessary to modulate the inflammatory reaction (Tarassishin, Suh, and Lee 2011), since it stimulates the transcription of SIRP-β1. This protein can complex with TREM2/DAP12 complex, which is strongly involved in the phagocytic response and the regulation of inflammation (Hayashi et al., 2004; Lanier 2009; W. Liu et al., 2020; Butler et al., 2021). TREM2 plays a pivotal role in AD and recent findings revealed that TREM2 and TLR4 expressions are negatively correlated. Long and colleagues have shown that TREM2 attenuates amyloid-mediated neuroinflammation by repressing TLR2, 4 and 6 downstream in vitro (Long et al., 2019). This group proposed that TREM2 may regulate the translocation of NF-κB and then suppress p-ERK/p-p38 and p65 signaling pathway (Long et al., 2019). However, the exact mechanism linking TREM2 and TLR4 remains to be elucidated.

XI. Final Remarks

Modulating the innate immune response constitutes a promising therapeutic avenue for AD, especially in targeting three families of receptors, e.g., CSFR1, NOD2 and TLR4 (Fig. 4). In the last decade, specific ligands for these receptors have shown interesting outcomes on the AD physiopathology and this both in vitro and in vivo contexts. MDP, mCSF, and MPL are able to modulate the immunity, delay the cognitive decline and reduce the amyloid burden. It raises interesting questions about the real effect of these molecules on cells and the disease. What are the mechanisms involved and do they last? What are the roles and the functions of patrolling and intermediate monocytes? Finally, whether the signaling pathways initiated by MDP, mCSF, and MPL interact together on monocytes and resident microglia? Advances in understanding the proper way to activate of innate immune cells are primordial to develop effective therapeutic strategies in AD and we may be closer to propose something to patients and those at risk of developing this disease at the end of the day.

Fig. 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1

Action of mCSF on innate immune cells in Alzheimer’s disease. In the brain, mCSF stimulates proliferation of microglia and their phagocytic abilities toward amyloid peptides. The cytokine also stimulates the production of CCL2, which recruits monocytes from the blood stream. Monocytes infiltrate the brain on a CCR2-dependent manner and differentiate into microglia-like cells once into brain. The latter then helps to phagocyte amyloid peptides.

Fig. 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2

The effect of MDP on innate immunity: MDP induces the switch from inflammatory monocytes to patrolling monocytes into blood vessels. The latter cells scavenge vascular amyloid. The transport of Aβ across the BBB is partly done by LRP1. Perivascular microglia could be the cells transporting amyloid peptides from the parenchyma to LRP1 at the abluminal side of the BBB.

Fig. 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3

The effect of MPL on the immune system in AD. MPL activates the microglial phagocytosis via p38 and CD36/SRA. In blood vessels, MPL stimulates the proliferation of monocytes.

Fig. 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4

Action of mCSF, MDP, and MPL on the immune system in AD. mCSF stimulates monocyte precursors in the bone marrow to trigger the recruitment of Ly6Chi monocytes in the blood vessels where they may infiltrate into the brain to phagocyte amyloid plaques. MPL induces the proliferation of monocytes and activates the phagocytic response by microglia. MDP injections lead to the conversion from Ly6Chi to Ly6Clow monocytes in blood vessels and patrol the cerebrovascular system and clear amyloid peptides on the luminal side of the blood-brain barrier.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Canadian Institutes in Health Research (CIHR) foundation grant.

Footnotes

    • Received May 17, 2021.
    • Accepted August 13, 2021.
  • This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes in Health Research (CIHR) [Grant 143279].

  • No author has an actual or perceived conflict of interest with the contents of this article.

  • https://doi.org/10.1124/pharmrev.121.000400.

Abbreviations

Aβ:
amyloid beta
ABCB1
ATP-binding cassette B1
AD
Alzheimer disease
APOE
apolipoprotein
APP
amyloid precursor protein
BBB
blood-brain barrier
BDNF
brain-derived neurotrophic factor
BMDM
bone marrow–derived microglia
CAA
cerebral amyloid angiopathy
cMoP
common monocyte progenitor population
CNS
central nervous system
CR1
complement receptor type 1
CSF1R
macrophage-colony stimulating factor receptor
DAMP
damage-associated molecular patterns
EOAD
early onset Alzheimer disease
ERK
extracellular signal-regulated kinase
GMP
granulocyte and macrophages progenitor
HLA
human leukocyte antigen
IL
interleukin
IRF
interferon regulatory factor
LOAD
late-onset Alzheimer disease
LPS
lipopolysaccharide
mCSF
macrophage colony stimulating factor
MDP
muramyl dipeptide
MPL
monophosphoryl lipid A
NGF
nerve growth factor
NOD2
nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain–containing 2
PAMP
pathogen-associated molecular pattern
PICALM
phosphatidylinositol binding clathrin assembly protein
PRR
pattern recognition receptor
PSEN
presenilin
PU.1
purine-rich box 1
ROS
reactive oxygen species
TLR
toll-like receptor
TNF-α
tumor necrosis factor alpha
TLR
toll-like receptor.
  • Copyright © 2022 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aarsland D,
    2. Cummings JL,
    3. Yenner G, and
    4. Miller B
    (1996) Relationship of aggressive behavior to other neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 153:243–247 DOI: 10.1176/ajp.153.2.243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ackley SF,
    2. Zimmerman SC,
    3. Brenowitz WD,
    4. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ,
    5. Gold AL,
    6. Manly JJ,
    7. Mayeda ER,
    8. Filshtein TJ,
    9. Power MC,
    10. Elahi FM, et al.
    (2021) Effect of reductions in amyloid levels on cognitive change in randomized trials: instrumental variable meta-analysis. BMJ 372:n156 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n156.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Pulendran B and
    2. Ahmed R
    1. Akira S (
    2006) TLR Signaling, in From Innate Immunity to Immunological Memory (Pulendran B and Ahmed R eds) 311:1–16. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-32636-7_1.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Anbazhagan K,
    2. Duroux-Richard I,
    3. Jorgensen C, and
    4. Apparailly F
    (2014) Transcriptomic network support distinct roles of classical and non-classical monocytes in human. Int Rev Immunol 33:470–489 DOI: 10.3109/08830185.2014.902453.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Arnsten AFT,
    2. Datta D,
    3. Tredici KD, and
    4. Braak H
    (2021) Hypothesis: Tau pathology is an initiating factor in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 17:115–124 DOI: 10.1002/alz.12192.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Baldrick P,
    2. Richardson D,
    3. Elliott G, and
    4. Wheeler AW
    (2002) Safety evaluation of monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL): an immunostimulatory adjuvant. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 35:398–413 DOI: 10.1006/rtph.2002.1541.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Balducci C,
    2. Frasca A,
    3. Zotti M,
    4. La Vitola P,
    5. Mhillaj E,
    6. Grigoli E,
    7. Iacobellis M,
    8. Grandi F,
    9. Messa M,
    10. Colombo L, et al.
    (2017) Toll-like receptor 4-dependent glial cell activation mediates the impairment in memory establishment induced by β-amyloid oligomers in an acute mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Behav Immun 60:188–197 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2016.10.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Ballard C,
    2. Gauthier S,
    3. Corbett A,
    4. Brayne C,
    5. Aarsland D, and
    6. Jones E
    (2011) Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 377:1019–1031 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61349-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bardou I,
    2. Kaercher RM,
    3. Brothers HM,
    4. Hopp SC,
    5. Royer S, and
    6. Wenk GL
    (2014) Age and duration of inflammatory environment differentially affect the neuroimmune response and catecholaminergic neurons in the midbrain and brainstem. Neurobiol Aging 35:1065–1073 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.11.006.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Baufeld C,
    2. O’Loughlin E,
    3. Calcagno N,
    4. Madore C, and
    5. Butovsky O
    (2018) Differential contribution of microglia and monocytes in neurodegenerative diseases. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 125:809–826 DOI: 10.1007/s00702-017-1795-7.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Bekris LM,
    2. Yu C-E,
    3. Bird TD, and
    4. Tsuang DW
    (2010) Genetics of Alzheimer disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 23:213–227 DOI: 10.1177/0891988710383571.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Bell RD (
    2012) The Imbalance of Vascular Molecules in Alzheimer’s Disease.Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 32 (3):699–709. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2012-121060.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Bellavance M-A,
    2. Gosselin D,
    3. Yong VW,
    4. Stys PK, and
    5. Rivest S
    (2015) Patrolling monocytes play a critical role in CX3CR1-mediated neuroprotection during excitotoxicity. Brain Struct Funct 220:1759–1776 DOI: 10.1007/s00429-014-0759-z.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Bennett RE,
    2. Bryant A,
    3. Hu M,
    4. Robbins AB,
    5. Hopp SC, and
    6. Hyman BT
    (2018) Partial reduction of microglia does not affect tau pathology in aged mice. J Neuroinflammation 15:311 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-018-1348-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Bertram L and
    2. Tanzi RE
    (2004) Alzheimer’s disease: one disorder, too many genes? Hum Mol Genet 13:R135–R141 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddh077.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Birch AM,
    2. Katsouri L, and
    3. Sastre M
    (2014) Modulation of inflammation in transgenic models of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neuroinflammation 11:25 DOI: 10.1186/1742-2094-11-25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Bloom GS
    (2014) Amyloid-β and tau: the trigger and bullet in Alzheimer disease pathogenesis. JAMA Neurol 71:505–508 DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.5847.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Bohlen CJ,
    2. Bennett FC,
    3. Tucker AF,
    4. Collins HY,
    5. Mulinyawe SB, and
    6. Barres BA
    (2017) Diverse requirements for microglial survival, specification, and function revealed by defined-medium cultures. Neuron 94:759–773.e8 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.043.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Boissonneault V,
    2. Filali M,
    3. Lessard M,
    4. Relton J,
    5. Wong G, and
    6. Rivest S
    (2009) Powerful beneficial effects of macrophage colony-stimulating factor on beta-amyloid deposition and cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 132:1078–1092 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn331.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Boncristiano S,
    2. Calhoun ME,
    3. Kelly PH,
    4. Pfeifer M,
    5. Bondolfi L,
    6. Stalder M,
    7. Phinney AL,
    8. Abramowski D,
    9. Sturchler-Pierrat C,
    10. Enz A, et al.
    (2002) Cholinergic changes in the APP23 transgenic mouse model of cerebral amyloidosis. J Neurosci 22:3234–3243 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-08-03234.2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Boulakirba S,
    2. Pfeifer A,
    3. Mhaidly R,
    4. Obba S,
    5. Goulard M,
    6. Schmitt T,
    7. Chaintreuil P,
    8. Calleja A,
    9. Furstoss N,
    10. Orange F, et al.
    (2018) IL-34 and CSF-1 display an equivalent macrophage differentiation ability but a different polarization potential. Sci Rep 8:256 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18433-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Brenowitz WD,
    2. Nelson PT,
    3. Besser LM,
    4. Heller KB, and
    5. Kukull WA
    (2015) Cerebral amyloid angiopathy and its co-occurrence with Alzheimer’s disease and other cerebrovascular neuropathologic changes. Neurobiol Aging 36:2702–2708 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.06.028.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Buchman AS,
    2. Yu L,
    3. Boyle PA,
    4. Schneider JA,
    5. De Jager PL, and
    6. Bennett DA
    (2016) Higher brain BDNF gene expression is associated with slower cognitive decline in older adults. Neurology 86:735–741 DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002387.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Businaro R,
    2. Corsi M,
    3. Asprino R,
    4. Di Lorenzo C,
    5. Laskin D,
    6. Corbo RM,
    7. Ricci S, and
    8. Pinto A
    (2018) Modulation of inflammation as a way of delaying Alzheimer’s disease progression: the diet’s role. Curr Alzheimer Res 15:363–380 DOI: 10.2174/1567205014666170829100100.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Butler, Claire A.,
    2. Popescu Alma S.,
    3. Kitchener Emily J. A.,
    4. Allendorf David H.,
    5. Mar Puigdellívol, and
    6. Guy C. Brown
    . 2021. Microglial phagocytosis of neurons in neurodegeneration, and its regulation. Journal of Neurochemistry, March, jnc.15327. DOI: 10.1111/jnc.15327.
  25. ↵
    1. Butovsky O and
    2. Weiner HL
    (2018) Microglial signatures and their role in health and disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 19:622–635 DOI: 10.1038/s41583-018-0057-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Calhoun ME,
    2. Burgermeister P,
    3. Phinney AL,
    4. Stalder M,
    5. Tolnay M,
    6. Wiederhold K-H,
    7. Abramowski D,
    8. Sturchler-Pierrat C,
    9. Sommer B,
    10. Staufenbiel M, et al.
    (1999) Neuronal overexpression of mutant amyloid precursor protein results in prominent deposition of cerebrovascular amyloid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:14088–14093 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.24.14088.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Calvo-Rodriguez M,
    2. García-Rodríguez C,
    3. Villalobos C, and
    4. Núñez L
    (2020) Role of toll like receptor 4 in Alzheimer’s disease. Front Immunol 11:1588 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01588.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Carare RO,
    2. Hawkes CA,
    3. Jeffrey M,
    4. Kalaria RN, and
    5. Weller RO
    (2013) Review: cerebral amyloid angiopathy, prion angiopathy, CADASIL and the spectrum of protein elimination failure angiopathies (PEFA) in neurodegenerative disease with a focus on therapy. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 39:593–611 DOI: 10.1111/nan.12042.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Carlin LM,
    2. Stamatiades EG,
    3. Auffray C,
    4. Hanna RN,
    5. Glover L,
    6. Vizcay-Barrena G,
    7. Hedrick CC,
    8. Cook HT,
    9. Diebold S, and
    10. Geissmann F
    (2013) Nr4a1-dependent Ly6C(low) monocytes monitor endothelial cells and orchestrate their disposal. Cell 153:362–375 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Chakrabarty P,
    2. Li A,
    3. Ceballos-Diaz C,
    4. Eddy JA,
    5. Funk CC,
    6. Moore B,
    7. DiNunno N,
    8. Rosario AM,
    9. Cruz PE,
    10. Verbeeck C, et al.
    (2015) IL-10 alters immunoproteostasis in APP mice, increasing plaque burden and worsening cognitive behavior. Neuron 85:519–533 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.11.020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Chang R,
    2. Yee KL, and
    3. Sumbria RK
    (2017) Tumor necrosis factor α inhibition for Alzheimer’s disease. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis 9:1179573517709278 DOI: 10.1177/1179573517709278.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Chen, Guo-fang,
    2. Ting-hai Xu,
    3. Yan Yan,
    4. Yu-ren Zhou,
    5. Yi Jiang,
    6. Karsten Melcher, and
    7. H Eric Xu
    . 2017. Amyloid beta: Structure, biology and structure-based therapeutic development. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica 38 (9): 1205–35. DOI: 10.1038/aps.2017.28.
    OpenUrl
    1. Chen L,
    2. Deng H,
    3. Cui H,
    4. Fang J,
    5. Zuo Z,
    6. Deng J,
    7. Li Y,
    8. Wang X, and
    9. Zhao L
    (2017) Inflammatory responses and inflammation-associated diseases in organs. Oncotarget 9:7204–7218 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Chihara T,
    2. Suzu S,
    3. Hassan R,
    4. Chutiwitoonchai N,
    5. Hiyoshi M,
    6. Motoyoshi K,
    7. Kimura F, and
    8. Okada S
    (2010) IL-34 and M-CSF share the receptor Fms but are not identical in biological activity and signal activation. Cell Death Differ 17:1917–1927 DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2010.60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Chitu V,
    2. Gokhan Ş,
    3. Nandi S,
    4. Mehler MF, and
    5. Stanley ER
    (2016) Emerging roles for CSF-1 receptor and its ligands in the nervous system. Trends Neurosci 39:378–393 DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2016.03.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Chitu V and
    2. Stanley ER
    (2006) Colony-stimulating factor-1 in immunity and inflammation. Curr Opin Immunol 18:39–48 DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2005.11.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Chung H,
    2. Brazil MI,
    3. Soe TT, and
    4. Maxfield FR
    (1999) Uptake, degradation, and release of fibrillar and soluble forms of Alzheimer’s amyloid β-peptide by microglial cells. J Biol Chem 274:32301–32308 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.274.45.32301.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Cornejo F,
    2. Vruwink M,
    3. Metz C,
    4. Muñoz P,
    5. Salgado N,
    6. Poblete J,
    7. Andrés ME,
    8. Eugenín J, and
    9. von Bernhardi R
    (2018) Scavenger Receptor-A deficiency impairs immune response of microglia and astrocytes potentiating Alzheimer’s disease pathophysiology. Brain Behav Immun 69:336–350 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2017.12.007.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Dario S. Zamboni
    1. Coulombe F,
    2. Fiola S,
    3. Akira S,
    4. Cormier Y, and
    5. Gosselin J
    2012. “Muramyl dipeptide induces NOD2-dependent Ly6Chigh monocyte recruitment to the lungs and protects against influenza virus infection.” Edited by Dario S. Zamboni. PLoS ONE 7 (5): e36734. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036734.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Crispoltoni L,
    2. Stabile AM,
    3. Pistilli A,
    4. Venturelli M,
    5. Cerulli G,
    6. Fonte C,
    7. Smania N,
    8. Schena F, and
    9. Rende M
    (2017) Changes in plasma β-NGF and its receptors expression on peripheral blood monocytes during Alzheimer’s disease progression. J Alzheimers Dis 55:1005–1017 DOI: 10.3233/JAD-160625.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Cros J,
    2. Cagnard N,
    3. Woollard K,
    4. Patey N,
    5. Zhang S-Y,
    6. Senechal B,
    7. Puel A,
    8. Biswas SK,
    9. Moshous D,
    10. Picard C, et al.
    (2010) Human CD14dim monocytes patrol and sense nucleic acids and viruses via TLR7 and TLR8 receptors. Immunity 33:375–386 DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.08.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Cruz Hernández JC,
    2. Bracko O,
    3. Kersbergen CJ,
    4. Muse V,
    5. Haft-Javaherian M,
    6. Berg M,
    7. Park L,
    8. Vinarcsik LK,
    9. Ivasyk I,
    10. Rivera DA, et al.
    (2019) Neutrophil adhesion in brain capillaries reduces cortical blood flow and impairs memory function in Alzheimer’s disease mouse models. Nat Neurosci 22:413–420 DOI: 10.1038/s41593-018-0329-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Cuadros MA and
    2. Navascués J
    (2001) Early Origin and Colonization of the Developing Central Nervous System by Microglial Precursors, (Progress in Brain Research), Vol. 132, pp 51–59, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(01)32065-4.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Dahl R,
    2. Walsh JC,
    3. Lancki D,
    4. Laslo P,
    5. Iyer SR,
    6. Singh H, and
    7. Simon MC
    (2003) Regulation of macrophage and neutrophil cell fates by the PU.1:C/EBPalpha ratio and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Nat Immunol 4:1029–1036 DOI: 10.1038/ni973.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Davis J and
    2. Van Nostrand WE
    (1996) Enhanced pathologic properties of Dutch-type mutant amyloid beta-protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2996–3000 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.93.7.2996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Dedieu S and
    2. Langlois B
    (2008) LRP-1: a new modulator of cytoskeleton dynamics and adhesive complex turnover in cancer cells. Cell Adhes Migr 2:77–80 DOI: 10.4161/cam.2.2.6374.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Delaney C,
    2. Farrell M,
    3. Doherty CP,
    4. Brennan K,
    5. O’Keeffe E,
    6. Greene C,
    7. Byrne K,
    8. Kelly E,
    9. Birmingham N,
    10. Hickey P, et al.
    (2021) Attenuated CSF-1R signalling drives cerebrovascular pathology. EMBO Mol Med 13:e12889 DOI: 10.15252/emmm.202012889.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. DeMattos RB,
    2. Bales KR,
    3. Cummins DJ,
    4. Dodart J-C,
    5. Paul SM, and
    6. Holtzman DM
    (2001) Peripheral anti-A beta antibody alters CNS and plasma A beta clearance and decreases brain A beta burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:8850–8855 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.151261398.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Doody RS,
    2. Raman R,
    3. Farlow M,
    4. Iwatsubo T,
    5. Vellas B,
    6. Joffe S,
    7. Kieburtz K,
    8. He F,
    9. Sun X,
    10. Thomas RG, et al
    ; Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Steering Committee; Semagacestat Study Group (2013) A phase 3 trial of semagacestat for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 369:341–350 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210951.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Doyle SE,
    2. O’Connell RM,
    3. Miranda GA,
    4. Vaidya SA,
    5. Chow EK,
    6. Liu PT,
    7. Suzuki S,
    8. Suzuki N,
    9. Modlin RL,
    10. Yeh WC, et al.
    (2004) Toll-like receptors induce a phagocytic gene program through p38. J Exp Med 199:81–90 DOI: 10.1084/jem.20031237.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Dubois B,
    2. Hampel H,
    3. Feldman HH,
    4. Scheltens P,
    5. Aisen P,
    6. Andrieu S,
    7. Bakardjian H,
    8. Benali H,
    9. Bertram L,
    10. Blennow K, et al
    ; Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Working Group (IWG) and the American Alzheimer’s Association on “The Preclinical State of AD”; July 23, 2015; Washington DC, USA (2016) Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: definition, natural history, and diagnostic criteria. Alzheimers Dement 12:292–323 DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.02.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Dugan J,
    2. Griffiths E,
    3. Snow P,
    4. Rosenzweig H,
    5. Lee E,
    6. Brown B,
    7. Carr DW,
    8. Rose C,
    9. Rosenbaum J, and
    10. Davey MP
    (2015) Blau syndrome-associated Nod2 mutation alters expression of full-length NOD2 and limits responses to muramyl dipeptide in knock-in mice. J Immunol 194:349–357 DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402330.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. El Khoury J,
    2. Toft M,
    3. Hickman SE,
    4. Means TK,
    5. Terada K,
    6. Geula C, and
    7. Luster AD
    (2007) Ccr2 deficiency impairs microglial accumulation and accelerates progression of Alzheimer-like disease. Nat Med 13:432–438 DOI: 10.1038/nm1555.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Elali A and
    2. Rivest S
    (2013) The role of ABCB1 and ABCA1 in beta-amyloid clearance at the neurovascular unit in Alzheimer’s disease. Front Physiol 4:45 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00045.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Esparza TJ,
    2. Gangolli M,
    3. Cairns NJ, and
    4. Brody DL (
    2018) Soluble amyloid-beta buffering by plaques in Alzheimer disease dementia versus high-pathology controls. PLOS ONE 13 (7): e0200251. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200251.
  55. ↵
    1. Fan Y,
    2. Ma Y,
    3. Huang W,
    4. Cheng X,
    5. Gao N,
    6. Li G, and
    7. Tian S
    (2019) Up-regulation of TREM2 accelerates the reduction of amyloid deposits and promotes neuronal regeneration in the hippocampus of amyloid beta1-42 injected mice. J Chem Neuroanat 97:71–79 DOI: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2019.02.002.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Fani Maleki A,
    2. Cisbani G,
    3. Plante M-M,
    4. Préfontaine P,
    5. Laflamme N,
    6. Gosselin J, and
    7. Rivest S
    (2020) Muramyl dipeptide-mediated immunomodulation on monocyte subsets exerts therapeutic effects in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neuroinflammation 17:218 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-020-01893-3.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Ferreira-Vieira TH,
    2. Guimaraes IM,
    3. Silva FR, and
    4. Ribeiro FM
    (2016) Alzheimer’s disease: targeting the cholinergic System. Curr Neuropharmacol 14:101–115 DOI: 10.2174/1570159x13666150716165726.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Fiebich BL,
    2. Batista CRA,
    3. Saliba SW,
    4. Yousif NM, and
    5. de Oliveira ACP
    (2018) Role of microglia TLRs in neurodegeneration. Front Cell Neurosci 12:329 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2018.00329.
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Finsterbusch M,
    2. Hall P,
    3. Li A,
    4. Devi S,
    5. Westhorpe CLV,
    6. Kitching AR, and
    7. Hickey MJ
    (2016) Patrolling monocytes promote intravascular neutrophil activation and glomerular injury in the acutely inflamed glomerulus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E5172–E5181 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1606253113.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Fisher DW,
    2. Bennett DA, and
    3. Dong H
    (2018) Sexual dimorphism in predisposition to Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 70:308–324 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.04.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Friedman AD
    (2007) Transcriptional control of granulocyte and monocyte development. Oncogene 26:6816–6828 DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210764.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Galle SA,
    2. van der Spek A,
    3. Drent ML,
    4. Brugts MP,
    5. Scherder EJA,
    6. Janssen JAMJL,
    7. Ikram MA, and
    8. van Duijn CM
    (2019) Revisiting the role of insulin-like growth factor-I receptor stimulating activity and the apolipoprotein E in Alzheimer’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci 11:20 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00020.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Gasteiger G,
    2. D’Osualdo A,
    3. Schubert DA,
    4. Weber A,
    5. Bruscia EM, and
    6. Hartl D
    (2017) Cellular innate immunity: An old game with new players. J Innate Immun 9:111–125 DOI: 10.1159/000453397.
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Ginhoux F and
    2. Jung S
    (2014) Monocytes and macrophages: developmental pathways and tissue homeostasis. Nat Rev Immunol 14:392–404 DOI: 10.1038/nri3671.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Ginhoux F,
    2. Lim S,
    3. Hoeffel G,
    4. Low D, and
    5. Huber T
    (2013) Origin and differentiation of microglia. Front Cell Neurosci 7:45 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2013.00045.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Giuffrida ML,
    2. Copani A, and
    3. Rizzarelli E
    (2018) A promising connection between BDNF and Alzheimer’s disease. Aging (Albany NY) 10:1791–1792 DOI: 10.18632/aging.101518.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Golde TE
    (2014) Open questions for Alzheimer’s disease immunotherapy. Alzheimers Res Ther 6:3 DOI: 10.1186/alzrt233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Gosselin D and
    2. Rivest S
    (2011) Estrogen receptor transrepresses brain inflammation. Cell 145:495–497 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.04.018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Gosselin D,
    2. Skola D,
    3. Coufal NG,
    4. Holtman IR,
    5. Schlachetzki JCM,
    6. Sajti E,
    7. Jaeger BN,
    8. O’Connor C,
    9. Fitzpatrick C,
    10. Pasillas MP, et al.
    (2017) An environment-dependent transcriptional network specifies human microglia identity. Science 356:eaal3222 DOI: 10.1126/science.aal3222.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Green PS and
    2. Simpkins JW
    (2000) Neuroprotective effects of estrogens: potential mechanisms of action. Int J Dev Neurosci 18:347–358 DOI: 10.1016/S0736-5748(00)00017-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Guedes JR,
    2. Santana I,
    3. Cunha C,
    4. Duro D,
    5. Almeida MR,
    6. Cardoso AM,
    7. de Lima MC, and
    8. Cardoso AL
    (2015) MicroRNA deregulation and chemotaxis and phagocytosis impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 3:7–17 DOI: 10.1016/j.dadm.2015.11.004.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Guillonneau C,
    2. Bézie S, and
    3. Anegon I
    (2017) Immunoregulatory properties of the cytokine IL-34. Cell Mol Life Sci 74:2569–2586 DOI: 10.1007/s00018-017-2482-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Hanna RN,
    2. Carlin LM,
    3. Hubbeling HG,
    4. Nackiewicz D,
    5. Green AM,
    6. Punt JA,
    7. Geissmann F, and
    8. Hedrick CC
    (2011) The transcription factor NR4A1 (Nur77) controls bone marrow differentiation and the survival of Ly6C- monocytes. Nat Immunol 12:778–785 DOI: 10.1038/ni.2063.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Hartz AMS,
    2. Miller DS, and
    3. Bauer B
    (2010) Restoring blood-brain barrier P-glycoprotein reduces brain amyloid-β in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Pharmacol 77:715–723 DOI: 10.1124/mol.109.061754.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Hartz AMS,
    2. Zhong Y,
    3. Wolf A,
    4. LeVine H 3rd.,
    5. Miller DS, and
    6. Bauer B
    (2016) Aβ40 reduces P-glycoprotein at the blood-brain barrier through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. J Neurosci 36:1930–1941 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0350-15.2016.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Hawkes CA,
    2. Jayakody N,
    3. Johnston DA,
    4. Bechmann I, and
    5. Carare RO
    (2014) Failure of perivascular drainage of β-amyloid in cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Brain Pathol 24:396–403 DOI: 10.1111/bpa.12159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Hayashi A,
    2. Ohnishi H,
    3. Okazawa H,
    4. Nakazawa S,
    5. Ikeda H,
    6. Motegi S,
    7. Aoki N,
    8. Kimura S,
    9. Mikuni M, and
    10. Matozaki T
    (2004) Positive regulation of phagocytosis by SIRPbeta and its signaling mechanism in macrophages. J Biol Chem 279:29450–29460 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M400950200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Heneka MT
    (2020) An immune-cell signature marks the brain in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 577:322–323 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03892-8.
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Herrera-Molina R,
    2. Flores B,
    3. Orellana JA, and
    4. von Bernhardi R
    (2012) Modulation of interferon-γ-induced glial cell activation by transforming growth factor B1: a role for STAT1 and MAPK pathways: modulation of glial cell activation by TGFβ1. J Neurochem 123:113–123 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2012.07887.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Herzig MC,
    2. Van Nostrand WE, and
    3. Jucker M
    (2006) Mechanism of cerebral β-amyloid angiopathy: murine and cellular models. Brain Pathol 16:40–54 DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2006.tb00560.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Hickman SE,
    2. Kingery ND,
    3. Ohsumi TK,
    4. Borowsky ML,
    5. Wang LC,
    6. Means TK, and
    7. El Khoury J
    (2013) The microglial sensome revealed by direct RNA sequencing. Nat Neurosci 16:1896–1905 DOI: 10.1038/nn.3554.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Hoeffel G and
    2. Ginhoux F
    (2018) Fetal monocytes and the origins of tissue-resident macrophages. Cell Immunol 330:5–15 DOI: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2018.01.001.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Hong S,
    2. Beja-Glasser VF,
    3. Nfonoyim BM,
    4. Frouin A,
    5. Li S,
    6. Ramakrishnan S,
    7. Merry KM,
    8. Shi Q,
    9. Rosenthal A,
    10. Barres BA, et al.
    (2016) Complement and microglia mediate early synapse loss in Alzheimer mouse models. Science 352:712–716 DOI: 10.1126/science.aad8373.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. ↵
    1. Honig LS,
    2. Vellas B,
    3. Woodward M,
    4. Boada M,
    5. Bullock R,
    6. Borrie M,
    7. Hager K,
    8. Andreasen N,
    9. Scarpini E,
    10. Liu-Seifert H, et al.
    (2018) Trial of solanezumab for mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 378:321–330 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705971.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Imai T and
    2. Yasuda N
    (2016) Therapeutic intervention of inflammatory/immune diseases by inhibition of the fractalkine (CX3CL1)-CX3CR1 pathway. Inflamm Regen 36:9 DOI: 10.1186/s41232-016-0017-2.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Jellinger KA
    (2002) Alzheimer disease and cerebrovascular pathology: an update. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 109:813–836 DOI: 10.1007/s007020200068.
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    1. Jin N,
    2. Gao L,
    3. Fan X, and
    4. Xu H
    (2017) Friend or foe? Resident microglia vs bone marrow-derived microglia and their roles in the retinal degeneration. Mol Neurobiol 54:4094–4112 DOI: 10.1007/s12035-016-9960-9.
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Johannesson M,
    2. Sahlin C,
    3. Söderberg L,
    4. Basun H,
    5. Fälting J,
    6. Möller C,
    7. Zachrisson O,
    8. Sunnemark D,
    9. Svensson A,
    10. Odergren T, et al.
    (2021) Elevated soluble amyloid beta protofibrils in Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Cell Neurosci 114:103641 DOI: 10.1016/j.mcn.2021.103641.
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Kagan JC,
    2. Su T,
    3. Horng T,
    4. Chow A,
    5. Akira S, and
    6. Medzhitov R
    (2008) TRAM couples endocytosis of Toll-like receptor 4 to the induction of interferon-β. Nat Immunol 9:361–368 DOI: 10.1038/ni1569.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Kaiser NC,
    2. Melrose RJ,
    3. Liu C,
    4. Sultzer DL,
    5. Jimenez E,
    6. Su M,
    7. Monserratt L, and
    8. Mendez MF
    (2012) Neuropsychological and neuroimaging markers in early versus late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 27:520–529 DOI: 10.1177/1533317512459798.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Kametani F and
    2. Hasegawa M
    (2018) Reconsideration of amyloid hypothesis and tau hypothesis in Alzheimer’s disease. Front Neurosci 12:25 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00025.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Kanazawa N,
    2. Okafuji I,
    3. Kambe N,
    4. Nishikomori R,
    5. Nakata-Hizume M,
    6. Nagai S,
    7. Fuji A,
    8. Yuasa T,
    9. Manki A,
    10. Sakurai Y, et al.
    (2005) Early-onset sarcoidosis and CARD15 mutations with constitutive nuclear factor-kappaB activation: common genetic etiology with Blau syndrome. Blood 105:1195–1197 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2004-07-2972.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. ↵
    1. Kang DE,
    2. Pietrzik CU,
    3. Baum L,
    4. Chevallier N,
    5. Merriam DE,
    6. Kounnas MZ,
    7. Wagner SL,
    8. Troncoso JC,
    9. Kawas CH,
    10. Katzman R, et al.
    (2000) Modulation of amyloid β-protein clearance and Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility by the LDL receptor-related protein pathway. J Clin Invest 106:1159–1166 DOI: 10.1172/JCI11013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Kapellos TS,
    2. Bonaguro L,
    3. Gemünd I,
    4. Reusch N,
    5. Saglam A,
    6. Hinkley ER, and
    7. Schultze JL
    (2019) Human monocyte subsets and phenotypes in major chronic inflammatory diseases. Front Immunol 10:2035 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02035.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Kaplan MH
    (2013) STAT signaling in inflammation. JAK-STAT 2:e24198 DOI: 10.4161/jkst.24198.
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    1. Kawai T and
    2. Akira S
    (2009) The roles of TLRs, RLRs and NLRs in pathogen recognition. Int Immunol 21:317–337 DOI: 10.1093/intimm/dxp017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Kawanishi S,
    2. Takata K,
    3. Itezono S,
    4. Nagayama H,
    5. Konoya S,
    6. Chisaki Y,
    7. Toda Y,
    8. Nakata S,
    9. Yano Y,
    10. Kitamura Y, et al.
    (2018) Bone-marrow-derived microglia-like cells ameliorate brain amyloid pathology and cognitive impairment in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 64:563–585 DOI: 10.3233/JAD-170994.
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Kierdorf K,
    2. Erny D,
    3. Goldmann T,
    4. Sander V,
    5. Schulz C,
    6. Perdiguero EG,
    7. Wieghofer P,
    8. Heinrich A,
    9. Riemke P,
    10. Hölscher C, et al.
    (2013) Microglia emerge from erythromyeloid precursors via Pu.1- and Irf8-dependent pathways. Nat Neurosci 16:273–280 DOI: 10.1038/nn.3318.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Kim I,
    2. Mlsna LM,
    3. Yoon S,
    4. Le B,
    5. Yu S,
    6. Xu D, and
    7. Koh S
    (2015) A postnatal peak in microglial development in the mouse hippocampus is correlated with heightened sensitivity to seizure triggers. Brain Behav 5:e00403 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.403.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. ↵
    1. Kim Y-G,
    2. Kamada N,
    3. Shaw MH,
    4. Warner N,
    5. Chen GY,
    6. Franchi L, and
    7. Núñez G
    (2011) The Nod2 sensor promotes intestinal pathogen eradication via the chemokine CCL2-dependent recruitment of inflammatory monocytes. Immunity 34:769–780 DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.04.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Kinney JW,
    2. Bemiller SM,
    3. Murtishaw AS,
    4. Leisgang AM,
    5. Salazar AM, and
    6. Lamb BT
    (2018) Inflammation as a central mechanism in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 4:575–590 DOI: 10.1016/j.trci.2018.06.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. ↵
    1. Kitazawa M,
    2. Oddo S,
    3. Yamasaki TR,
    4. Green KN, and
    5. LaFerla FM
    (2005) Lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation exacerbates tau pathology by a cyclin-dependent kinase 5-mediated pathway in a transgenic model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurosci 25:8843–8853 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2868-05.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    1. Klemsz MJ,
    2. McKercher SR,
    3. Celada A,
    4. Van Beveren C, and
    5. Maki RA
    (1990) The macrophage and B cell-specific transcription factor PU.1 is related to the ets oncogene. Cell 61:113–124 DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90219-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Lam BYH,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Ng DC-H,
    4. Maruthappu M,
    5. Roderick HL, and
    6. Chawla S
    (2010) CREB-dependent Nur77 induction following depolarization in PC12 cells and neurons is modulated by MEF2 transcription factors. J Neurochem 112:1065–1073 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06521.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Lam FC,
    2. Liu R,
    3. Lu P,
    4. Shapiro AB,
    5. Renoir J-M,
    6. Sharom FJ, and
    7. Reiner PB
    (2001) β-Amyloid efflux mediated by p-glycoprotein. J Neurochem 76:1121–1128 DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2001.00113.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Lanier LL
    (2009) DAP10- and DAP12-associated receptors in innate immunity. Immunol Rev 227:150–160 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00720.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Lei F,
    2. Cui N,
    3. Zhou C,
    4. Chodosh J,
    5. Vavvas DG, and
    6. Paschalis EI
    (2020) CSF1R inhibition by a small-molecule inhibitor is not microglia specific; affecting hematopoiesis and the function of macrophages. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:23336–23338 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1922788117.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Lei F,
    2. Cui N,
    3. Zhou C,
    4. Chodosh J,
    5. Vavvas DG, and
    6. Paschalis EI
    (2021) Reply to green and hume: nonmicroglia peripheral immune effects of short-term CSF1R inhibition with PLX5622. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118:e2020660118 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2020660118.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  109. ↵
    1. Lenz KM and
    2. Nelson LH
    (2018) Microglia and beyond: innate immune cells as regulators of brain development and behavioral function. Front Immunol 9:698 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00698.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Lessard A-J,
    2. LeBel M,
    3. Egarnes B,
    4. Préfontaine P,
    5. Thériault P,
    6. Droit A,
    7. Brunet A,
    8. Rivest S, and
    9. Gosselin J
    (2017) Triggering of NOD2 receptor converts inflammatory Ly6Chigh into Ly6Clow monocytes with patrolling properties. Cell Rep 20:1830–1843 DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Letra L,
    2. Santana I, and
    3. Seiça R
    (2014) Obesity as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the role of adipocytokines. Metab Brain Dis 29:563–568 DOI: 10.1007/s11011-014-9501-z.
    OpenUrl
  112. ↵
    1. Li C,
    2. Chen Y-H, and
    3. Zhang K
    (2020) Neuroprotective properties and therapeutic potential of bone marrow-derived microglia in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 35:1533317520927169 DOI: 10.1177/1533317520927169.
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    1. Liu P-P,
    2. Xie Y,
    3. Meng X-Y, and
    4. Kang J-S
    (2019) History and progress of hypotheses and clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease. Signal Transduct Target Ther 4:29 DOI: 10.1038/s41392-019-0063-8.
    OpenUrl
  114. ↵
    1. Liu W,
    2. Taso O,
    3. Wang R,
    4. Bayram S,
    5. Graham AC,
    6. Garcia-Reitboeck P,
    7. Mallach A,
    8. Andrews WD,
    9. Piers TM,
    10. Botia JA, et al.
    (2020) Trem2 promotes anti-inflammatory responses in microglia and is suppressed under pro-inflammatory conditions. Hum Mol Genet 29:3224–3248 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddaa209.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Zhong H,
    3. Bao W,
    4. Mendelson A,
    5. An X,
    6. Shi P,
    7. Chou ST,
    8. Manwani D, and
    9. Yazdanbakhsh K
    (2019) Patrolling monocytes scavenge endothelial-adherent sickle RBCs: a novel mechanism of inhibition of vaso-occlusion in SCD. Blood 134:579–590 DOI: 10.1182/blood.2019000172.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. ↵
    1. Long H,
    2. Zhong G,
    3. Wang C,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Zhang Y,
    6. Luo J, and
    7. Shi S
    (2019) TREM2 attenuates Aβ1-42-mediated neuroinflammation in BV-2 cells by downregulating TLR signaling. Neurochem Res 44:1830–1839 DOI: 10.1007/s11064-019-02817-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Low D and
    2. Ginhoux F
    (2018) Recent advances in the understanding of microglial development and homeostasis. Cell Immunol 330:68–78 DOI: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2018.01.004.
    OpenUrl
  117. ↵
    1. Ma, Xiaolei,
    2. Wei Yu Lin,
    3. Yongmei Chen,
    4. Scott Stawicki,
    5. Kiran Mukhyala,
    6. Yan Wu,
    7. Flavius Martin,
    8. J. Fernando Bazan, and
    9. Melissa A. Starovasnik
    . 2012. Structural basis for the dual recognition of helical cytokines IL-34 and CSF-1 by CSF-1R. Structure (London, England: 1993) 20 (4): 676–87. DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2012.02.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Majumdar A,
    2. Cruz D,
    3. Asamoah N,
    4. Buxbaum A,
    5. Sohar I,
    6. Lobel P, and
    7. Maxfield FR
    2007. Activation of microglia acidifies lysosomes and leads to degradation of Alzheimer amyloid fibrils. Molecular Biology of the Cell 18 (4): 1490–96. DOI: 10.1091/mbc.e06-10-0975.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. ↵
    1. Martini AC,
    2. Gomez-Arboledas A,
    3. Forner S,
    4. Rodriguez-Ortiz CJ,
    5. McQuade A,
    6. Danhash E,
    7. Phan J,
    8. Javonillo D,
    9. Ha JV,
    10. Tram M, et al.
    (2019) Amyloid-beta impairs TOM1-mediated IL-1R1 signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:21198–21206 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914088116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  120. ↵
    1. Martin-Estebane M and
    2. Gomez-Nicola D
    (2020) Targeting microglial population dynamics in Alzheimer’s disease: are we ready for a potential impact on immune function? Front Cell Neurosci 14:149 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2020.00149.
    OpenUrl
  121. ↵
    1. Mendez MF
    (2017) Early-onset Alzheimer disease. Neurol Clin 35:263–281 DOI: 10.1016/j.ncl.2017.01.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Michaud J-P,
    2. Hallé M,
    3. Lampron A,
    4. Thériault P,
    5. Préfontaine P,
    6. Filali M,
    7. Tribout-Jover P,
    8. Lanteigne AM,
    9. Jodoin R,
    10. Cluff C, et al.
    (2013) Toll-like receptor 4 stimulation with the detoxified ligand monophosphoryl lipid A improves Alzheimer’s disease-related pathology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:1941–1946 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1215165110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. ↵
    1. Minoretti P,
    2. Gazzaruso C,
    3. Vito CD,
    4. Emanuele E,
    5. Bianchi M,
    6. Coen E,
    7. Reino M, and
    8. Geroldi D
    (2006) Effect of the functional toll-like receptor 4 Asp299Gly polymorphism on susceptibility to late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci Lett 391:147–149 DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.08.047.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Mizuno T,
    2. Doi Y,
    3. Mizoguchi H,
    4. Jin S,
    5. Noda M,
    6. Sonobe Y,
    7. Takeuchi H, and
    8. Suzumura A
    (2011) Interleukin-34 selectively enhances the neuroprotective effects of microglia to attenuate oligomeric amyloid-β neurotoxicity. Am J Pathol 179:2016–2027 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.06.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. ↵
    1. Mizutani M,
    2. Pino PA,
    3. Saederup N,
    4. Charo IF,
    5. Ransohoff RM, and
    6. Cardona AE
    (2012) The fractalkine receptor but not CCR2 is present on microglia from embryonic development throughout adulthood. J Immunol 188:29–36 DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100421.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  126. ↵
    1. Mogensen TH
    (2009) Pathogen recognition and inflammatory signaling in innate immune defenses. Clin Microbiol Rev 22:240–273 DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00046-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  127. ↵
    1. Moonga I,
    2. Niccolini F,
    3. Wilson H,
    4. Pagano G, and
    5. Politis M
    ; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (2017) Hypertension is associated with worse cognitive function and hippocampal hypometabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Neurol 24:1173–1182 DOI: 10.1111/ene.13374.
    OpenUrl
  128. ↵
    1. Murphy MP and
    2. LeVine H
    (2010) Alzheimer’s disease and the amyloid-β Peptide. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 19 (1): 311–23. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2010-1221.
    OpenUrl
  129. ↵
    1. Narasimhan PB,
    2. Marcovecchio P,
    3. Hamers AAJ, and
    4. Hedrick CC
    (2019) Nonclassical monocytes in health and disease. Annu Rev Immunol 37:439–456 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-042617-053119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. ↵
    1. Nazem A,
    2. Sankowski R,
    3. Bacher M, and
    4. Al-Abed Y
    (2015) Rodent models of neuroinflammation for Alzheimer’s disease. J Neuroinflammation 12:74 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-015-0291-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  131. ↵
    1. Negroni A,
    2. Pierdomenico M,
    3. Cucchiara S, and
    4. Stronati L
    (2018) NOD2 and inflammation: current insights. J Inflamm Res 11:49–60 DOI: 10.2147/JIR.S137606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Ng LG,
    2. Ostuni R, and
    3. Hidalgo A
    (2019) Heterogeneity of neutrophils. Nat Rev Immunol 19:255–265 DOI: 10.1038/s41577-019-0141-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Ní Chasaide, Caitlín and
    2. Lynch, Marina A
    . 2020. The Role of the Immune System in Driving Neuroinflammation. Brain and Neuroscience Advances 4 (January): 239821281990108. DOI: 10.1177/2398212819901082.
  134. ↵
    1. Ogura Y,
    2. Bonen DK,
    3. Inohara N,
    4. Nicolae DL,
    5. Chen FF,
    6. Ramos R,
    7. Britton H,
    8. Moran T,
    9. Karaliuskas R,
    10. Duerr RH, et al.
    (2001) A frameshift mutation in NOD2 associated with susceptibility to Crohn’s disease. Nature 411:603–606 DOI: 10.1038/35079114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Olah M,
    2. Patrick E,
    3. Villani A-C,
    4. Xu J,
    5. White CC,
    6. Ryan KJ,
    7. Piehowski P,
    8. Kapasi A,
    9. Nejad P,
    10. Cimpean M, et al.
    (2018) A transcriptomic atlas of aged human microglia. Nat Commun 9:539 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-02926-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. ↵
    1. Pahl HL
    (1999) Activators and target genes of Rel/NF-kappaB transcription factors. Oncogene 18:6853–6866 DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203239.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. Paresce DM,
    2. Chung H, and
    3. Maxfield FR
    (1997) Slow degradation of aggregates of the Alzheimer’s disease amyloid β-protein by microglial cells. J Biol Chem 272:29390–29397 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.272.46.29390.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. ↵
    1. Park J-H,
    2. Kim Y-G,
    3. McDonald C,
    4. Kanneganti T-D,
    5. Hasegawa M,
    6. Body-Malapel M,
    7. Inohara N, and
    8. Núñez G
    (2007) RICK/RIP2 mediates innate immune responses induced through Nod1 and Nod2 but not TLRs. J Immunol 178:2380–2386 DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.4.2380.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. ↵
    1. Parkhurst CN,
    2. Yang G,
    3. Ninan I,
    4. Savas JN,
    5. Yates JR 3rd.,
    6. Lafaille JJ,
    7. Hempstead BL,
    8. Littman DR, and
    9. Gan W-B
    (2013) Microglia promote learning-dependent synapse formation through brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Cell 155:1596–1609 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.11.030.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. ↵
    1. Paudel YN,
    2. Angelopoulou E,
    3. Piperi C,
    4. Othman I,
    5. Aamir K, and
    6. Shaikh MF
    (2020) Impact of HMGB1, RAGE, and TLR4 in Alzheimer’s disease (AD): from risk factors to therapeutic targeting. Cells 9:383 DOI: 10.3390/cells9020383.
    OpenUrl
  141. ↵
    1. Philpott DJ,
    2. Sorbara MT,
    3. Robertson SJ,
    4. Croitoru K, and
    5. Girardin SE
    (2014) NOD proteins: regulators of inflammation in health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 14:9–23 DOI: 10.1038/nri3565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. ↵
    1. Pietronigro EC,
    2. Della Bianca V,
    3. Zenaro E, and
    4. Constantin G
    (2017) NETosis in Alzheimer’s disease. Front Immunol 8:211 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00211.
    OpenUrl
  143. ↵
    1. Pimentel-Coelho PM and
    2. Rivest S
    (2012) The early contribution of cerebrovascular factors to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Neurosci 35:1917–1937 DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08126.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. ↵
    1. Pons V,
    2. Laflamme N,
    3. Préfontaine P, and
    4. Rivest S
    (2020) Role of macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor on the proliferation and survival of microglia following systemic nerve and cuprizone-induced injuries. Front Immunol 11:47 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00047.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  145. ↵
    1. Pons V,
    2. Lévesque P,
    3. Plante M-M, and
    4. Rivest S
    (2021) Conditional genetic deletion of CSF1 receptor in microglia ameliorates the physiopathology of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 13:8 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-020-00747-7.
    OpenUrl
  146. ↵
    1. Pons V and
    2. Rivest S
    (2020) Beneficial roles of microglia and growth factors in MS, a brief review. Front Cell Neurosci 14:284 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2020.00284.
    OpenUrl
  147. ↵
    1. Pourbadie HG,
    2. Sayyah M,
    3. Khoshkholgh-Sima B,
    4. Choopani S,
    5. Nategh M,
    6. Motamedi F, and
    7. Shokrgozar MA
    (2018) Early minor stimulation of microglial TLR2 and TLR4 receptors attenuates Alzheimer’s disease-related cognitive deficit in rats: behavioral, molecular, and electrophysiological evidence. Neurobiol Aging 70:203–216 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.06.020.
    OpenUrl
  148. ↵
    1. Prinz M,
    2. Erny D, and
    3. Hagemeyer N
    (2017) Ontogeny and homeostasis of CNS myeloid cells. Nat Immunol 18:385–392 DOI: 10.1038/ni.3703.
    OpenUrl
  149. ↵
    1. Prinz M and
    2. Mildner A
    (2011) Microglia in the CNS: immigrants from another world. Glia 59:177–187 DOI: 10.1002/glia.21104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. ↵
    1. Proitsi P,
    2. Lupton MK,
    3. Velayudhan L,
    4. Newhouse S,
    5. Fogh I,
    6. Tsolaki M,
    7. Daniilidou M, et al.
    (2014). Genetic predisposition to increased blood cholesterol and triglyceride lipid levels and risk of Alzheimer disease: A Mendelian randomization analysis. PLoS Medicine 11 (9): e1001713. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001713.
    OpenUrl
  151. ↵
    1. Qi Xue-mei and
    2. Ma Jian-fang
    . 2017. The role of amyloid beta clearance in cerebral amyloid angiopathy: more potential therapeutic targets. Translational Neurodegeneration 6 (1): 22. DOI: 10.1186/s40035-017-0091-7.
    OpenUrl
  152. ↵
    1. Querfurth HW and
    2. LaFerla FM
    (2010) Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 362:329–344 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra0909142.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. ↵
    1. Ransohoff RM
    (2016) A polarizing question: do M1 and M2 microglia exist? Nat Neurosci 19:987–991 DOI: 10.1038/nn.4338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. ↵
    1. Rego Â,
    2. Viana SD,
    3. Ribeiro CA,
    4. Rodrigues-Santos P, and
    5. Pereira FC
    (2016) Monophosphoryl lipid-A: A promising tool for Alzheimer’s disease toll. J Alzheimers Dis 52:1189–1202 DOI: 10.3233/JAD-151183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. ↵
    1. Richard E,
    2. den Brok MGHE, and
    3. van Gool WA
    (2021) Bayes analysis supports null hypothesis of anti-amyloid beta therapy in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 17:1051–1055 DOI: 10.1002/alz.12379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. ↵
    1. Rivest S
    (2018) A ‘don’t eat me’ immune signal protects neuronal connections. Nature 563:42–43 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-07165-8.
    OpenUrl
  157. ↵
    1. Rossi B,
    2. Santos-Lima B,
    3. Terrabuio E,
    4. Zenaro E, and
    5. Constantin G
    (2021) Common Peripheral Immunity Mechanisms in Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s Disease. Front Immunol 12:639369 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.639369.
    OpenUrl
  158. ↵
    1. Sampaio Bazanella Tuane,
    2. Savall Anne Suely,
    3. Gutierrez Maria Eduarda Ziani, and
    4. Pinton Simone
    . (2017). Neurotrophic factors in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases: implications for pathogenesis and therapy. Neural Regeneration Research 12 (4): 549. DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.205084.
    OpenUrl
    1. Sassi C,
    2. Nalls MA,
    3. Ridge PG,
    4. Gibbs JR,
    5. Lupton MK,
    6. Troakes C,
    7. Lunnon K,
    8. Al-Sarraj S,
    9. Brown KS,
    10. Medway C, et al
    ; ARUK Consortium (2018) Mendelian adult-onset leukodystrophy genes in Alzheimer’s disease: critical influence of CSF1R and NOTCH3. Neurobiol Aging 66:179.e17–179.e29 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  159. ↵
    1. Satoh Jun-ichi,
    2. Kino Yoshihiro,
    3. Asahina Naohiro,
    4. Takitani Mika,
    5. Miyoshi Junko,
    6. Ishida Tsuyoshi, and
    7. Saito Yuko
    . (2016). TMEM119 marks a subset of microglia in the human brain: human microglial marker TMEM119. Neuropathology 36 (1): 39–49. DOI: 10.1111/neup.12235.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. ↵
    1. Schliebs R and
    2. Arendt T
    (2011) The cholinergic system in aging and neuronal degeneration. Behav Brain Res 221:555–563 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.11.058.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. ↵
    1. Shaftel SS,
    2. Kyrkanides S,
    3. Olschowka JA,
    4. Miller JN,
    5. Johnson RE, and
    6. O’Banion MK
    (2007) Sustained hippocampal IL-1 β overexpression mediates chronic neuroinflammation and ameliorates Alzheimer plaque pathology. J Clin Invest 117:1595–1604 DOI: 10.1172/JCI31450.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. ↵
    1. Shaona A,
    2. Verbeek M,
    3. Gomez CD,
    4. Bisht K,
    5. Lee B,
    6. Benoit L,
    7. Sharkey KA,
    8. Benediktsson A,
    9. Tremblay M-E, and
    10. Pittman QJ
    (2018) Reduced Microglial Activity and Enhanced Glutamate Transmission in the Basolateral Amygdala in Early CNS Autoimmunity. The Journal of Neuroscience 0398–18. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0398-18.2018.
  163. ↵
    1. Sheng JG,
    2. Bora SH,
    3. Xu G,
    4. Borchelt DR,
    5. Price DL, and
    6. Koliatsos VE
    (2003) Lipopolysaccharide-induced-neuroinflammation increases intracellular accumulation of amyloid precursor protein and amyloid β peptide in APPswe transgenic mice. Neurobiol Dis 14:133–145 DOI: 10.1016/S0969-9961(03)00069-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. ↵
    1. Sherrington R,
    2. Rogaev EI,
    3. Liang Y,
    4. Rogaeva EA,
    5. Levesque G,
    6. Ikeda M,
    7. Chi H,
    8. Lin C,
    9. Li G,
    10. Holman K, et al.
    (1995) Cloning of a gene bearing missense mutations in early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 375:754–760 DOI: 10.1038/375754a0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. ↵
    1. Shinohara M,
    2. Tachibana M,
    3. Kanekiyo T, and
    4. Bu G
    (2017) Role of LRP1 in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease: evidence from clinical and preclinical studies. J Lipid Res 58:1267–1281 DOI: 10.1194/jlr.R075796.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  166. ↵
    1. Sita G,
    2. Hrelia P,
    3. Tarozzi A, and
    4. Morroni F
    (2017) P-glycoprotein (ABCB1) and oxidative stress: focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2017:7905486 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7905486.
    OpenUrl
  167. ↵
    1. Song M,
    2. Jin J,
    3. Lim J-E,
    4. Kou J,
    5. Pattanayak A,
    6. Rehman JA,
    7. Kim HD,
    8. Tahara K,
    9. Lalonde R, and
    10. Fukuchi K
    (2011) TLR4 mutation reduces microglial activation, increases Aβ deposits and exacerbates cognitive deficits in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neuroinflammation 8:92 DOI: 10.1186/1742-2094-8-92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. ↵
    1. Sprangers S,
    2. de Vries TJ, and
    3. Everts V
    (2016) Monocyte heterogeneity: consequences for monocyte-derived immune cells. J Immunol Res 2016:1475435 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1475435.
    OpenUrl
  169. ↵
    1. Storck SE,
    2. Hartz AMS,
    3. Bernard J,
    4. Wolf A,
    5. Kachlmeier A,
    6. Mahringer A,
    7. Weggen S,
    8. Pahnke J, and
    9. Pietrzik CU
    (2018) The concerted amyloid-beta clearance of LRP1 and ABCB1/P-gp across the blood-brain barrier is linked by PICALM. Brain Behav Immun 73:21–33 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2018.07.017.
    OpenUrl
  170. ↵
    1. Storck SE,
    2. Meister S,
    3. Nahrath J,
    4. Meißner JN,
    5. Schubert N,
    6. Di Spiezio A,
    7. Baches S,
    8. Vandenbroucke RE,
    9. Bouter Y,
    10. Prikulis I, et al.
    (2016) Endothelial LRP1 transports amyloid-β(1-42) across the blood-brain barrier. J Clin Invest 126:123–136 DOI: 10.1172/JCI81108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. ↵
    1. Sun Q,
    2. Xie N,
    3. Tang B,
    4. Li R, and
    5. Shen Y
    (2017) Alzheimer’s disease: from genetic variants to the distinct pathological mechanisms. Front Mol Neurosci 10:319 DOI: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00319.
    OpenUrl
  172. ↵
    1. Swinnen N,
    2. Smolders S,
    3. Avila A,
    4. Notelaers K,
    5. Paesen R,
    6. Ameloot M,
    7. Brône B,
    8. Legendre P, and
    9. Rigo J-M
    (2013) Complex invasion pattern of the cerebral cortex bymicroglial cells during development of the mouse embryo. Glia 61:150–163 DOI: 10.1002/glia.22421.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Szepesi Z,
    2. Manouchehrian O,
    3. Bachiller S, and
    4. Deierborg T
    (2018) Bidirectional microglia-neuron communication in health and disease. Front Cell Neurosci 12:323 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2018.00323.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. ↵
    1. Tahara K,
    2. Kim H-D,
    3. Jin J-J,
    4. Maxwell JA,
    5. Li L, and
    6. Fukuchi K
    (2006) Role of toll-like receptor signalling in Abeta uptake and clearance. Brain 129:3006–3019 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awl249.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. ↵
    1. Takaki H,
    2. Minoda Y,
    3. Koga K,
    4. Takaesu G,
    5. Yoshimura A, and
    6. Kobayashi T
    (2006) TGF-beta1 suppresses IFN-γ-induced NO production in macrophages by suppressing STAT1 activation and accelerating iNOS protein degradation. Genes Cells 11:871–882 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2006.00988.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. ↵
    1. Talbot K,
    2. Wang H-Y,
    3. Kazi H,
    4. Han L-Y,
    5. Bakshi KP,
    6. Stucky A,
    7. Fuino RL,
    8. Kawaguchi KR,
    9. Samoyedny AJ,
    10. Wilson RS, et al.
    (2012) Demonstrated brain insulin resistance in Alzheimer’s disease patients is associated with IGF-1 resistance, IRS-1 dysregulation, and cognitive decline. J Clin Invest 122:1316–1338 DOI: 10.1172/JCI59903.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. ↵
    1. Tanimura N,
    2. Saitoh S,
    3. Matsumoto F,
    4. Akashi-Takamura S, and
    5. Miyake K
    (2008) Roles for LPS-dependent interaction and relocation of TLR4 and TRAM in TRIF-signaling. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 368:94–99 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.01.061.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  178. ↵
    1. Tanimura N,
    2. Saitoh S,
    3. Ohto U,
    4. Akashi-Takamura S,
    5. Fujimoto Y,
    6. Fukase K,
    7. Shimizu T, and
    8. Miyake K
    (2014) The attenuated inflammation of MPL is due to the lack of CD14-dependent tight dimerization of the TLR4/MD2 complex at the plasma membrane. Int Immunol 26:307–314 DOI: 10.1093/intimm/dxt071.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. ↵
    1. Tarassishin L,
    2. Suh HS, and
    3. Lee SC
    (2011) Interferon regulatory factor 3 plays an anti-inflammatory role in microglia by activating the PI3K/Akt pathway. J Neuroinflammation 8:187 DOI: 10.1186/1742-2094-8-187.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. ↵
    1. Thal DR,
    2. Ghebremedhin E,
    3. Orantes M, and
    4. Wiestler OD
    (2003) Vascular pathology in Alzheimer disease: correlation of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and arteriosclerosis/lipohyalinosis with cognitive decline. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 62:1287–1301 DOI: 10.1093/jnen/62.12.1287.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  181. ↵
    1. Thériault P,
    2. ElAli A, and
    3. Rivest S
    (2015) The dynamics of monocytes and microglia in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 7:41 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-015-0125-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. ↵
    1. Thomas G,
    2. Tacke R,
    3. Hedrick CC, and
    4. Hanna RN
    (2015) Nonclassical patrolling monocyte function in the vasculature. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 35:1306–1316 DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304650.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  183. ↵
    1. Town T,
    2. Laouar Y,
    3. Pittenger C,
    4. Mori T,
    5. Szekely CA,
    6. Tan J,
    7. Duman RS, and
    8. Flavell RA
    (2008) Blocking TGF-β-Smad2/3 innate immune signaling mitigates Alzheimer-like pathology. Nat Med 14:681–687 DOI: 10.1038/nm1781.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. ↵
    1. Walsh S,
    2. Merrick R,
    3. Milne R, and
    4. Brayne C
    (2021) Aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease? BMJ 374:n1682 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1682.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  185. ↵
    1. Walter S,
    2. Letiembre M,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Heine H,
    5. Penke B,
    6. Hao W,
    7. Bode B,
    8. Manietta N,
    9. Walter J,
    10. Schulz-Schuffer W, 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. ↵
    1. Wang W-Y,
    2. Tan M-S,
    3. Yu J-T, and
    4. Tan L
    (2015) Role of pro-inflammatory cytokines released from microglia in Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Transl Med 3:136 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.03.49.
    OpenUrl
  187. ↵
    1. Wang Y-Q,
    2. Bazin-Lee H,
    3. Evans JT,
    4. Casella CR, and
    5. Mitchell TC
    (2020) MPL adjuvant contains competitive antagonists of human TLR4. Front Immunol 11:577823 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.577823.
    OpenUrl
  188. ↵
    1. Westwood AJ,
    2. Beiser A,
    3. Decarli C,
    4. Harris TB,
    5. Chen TC,
    6. He XM,
    7. Roubenoff R,
    8. Pikula A,
    9. Au R,
    10. Braverman LE, et al.
    (2014) Insulin-like growth factor-1 and risk of Alzheimer dementia and brain atrophy. Neurology 82:1613–1619 DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  189. ↵
    1. Wharton W,
    2. Stein JH,
    3. Korcarz C,
    4. Sachs J,
    5. Olson SR,
    6. Zetterberg H,
    7. Dowling M,
    8. Ye S,
    9. Gleason CE,
    10. Underbakke G, et al.
    (2012) The effects of ramipril in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease: results of a pilot clinical trial. J Alzheimers Dis 32:147–156 DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2012-120763.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. ↵
    1. Wlodarczyk A,
    2. Holtman IR,
    3. Krueger M,
    4. Yogev N,
    5. Bruttger J,
    6. Khorooshi R,
    7. Benmamar-Badel A,
    8. de Boer-Bergsma JJ,
    9. Martin NA,
    10. Karram K, et al.
    (2017) A novel microglial subset plays a key role in myelinogenesis in developing brain. EMBO J 36:3292–3308 DOI: 10.15252/embj.201696056.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  191. ↵
    1. Wolf AA,
    2. Yáñez A,
    3. Barman PK, and
    4. Goodridge HS
    (2019) The ontogeny of monocyte subsets. Front Immunol 10:1642 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01642.
    OpenUrl
  192. ↵
    1. Xiong M,
    2. Jiang H,
    3. Serrano JR,
    4. Gonzales ER,
    5. Wang C,
    6. Gratuze M,
    7. Hoyle R,
    8. Bien-Ly N,
    9. Silverman AP,
    10. Sullivan PM et al.
    (2021) APOE immunotherapy reduces cerebral amyloid angiopathy and amyloid plaques while improving cerebrovascular function. Sci Transl Med 13:eabd7522 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abd7522.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  193. ↵
    1. Yáñez A and
    2. Goodridge HS
    (2016) Interferon regulatory factor 8 and the regulation of neutrophil, monocyte, and dendritic cell production. Curr Opin Hematol 23:11–17 DOI: 10.1097/MOH.0000000000000196.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  194. ↵
    1. Yoon JK and
    2. Lau LF
    (1993) Transcriptional activation of the inducible nuclear receptor gene nur77 by nerve growth factor and membrane depolarization in PC12 cells. J Biol Chem 268:9148–9155.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  195. ↵
    1. Yousefi N,
    2. Sotoodehnejadnematalahi F,
    3. Heshmati-Fakhr N,
    4. Sayyah M,
    5. Hoseini M,
    6. Ghassemi S,
    7. Aliakbari S, and
    8. Pourbadie HG
    (2019) Prestimulation of microglia through TLR4 pathway promotes interferon beta expression in a rat model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Mol Neurosci 67:495–503 DOI: 10.1007/s12031-018-1249-1.
    OpenUrl
  196. ↵
    1. Yu L,
    2. Chibnik LB,
    3. Srivastava GP,
    4. Pochet N,
    5. Yang J,
    6. Xu J,
    7. Kozubek J,
    8. Obholzer N,
    9. Leurgans SE,
    10. Schneider JA, et al.
    (2015) Association of brain DNA methylation in SORL1, ABCA7, HLA-DRB5, SLC24A4, and BIN1 with pathological diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol 72:15–24 DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3049.
    OpenUrl
  197. ↵
    1. Yuan Q,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Xian Y-F,
    4. Tang Y,
    5. Zou J,
    6. Zhang X,
    7. Huang P,
    8. Wu W,
    9. Song YQ, and
    10. Lin Z-X
    (2020) Origins of beta amyloid differ between vascular amyloid deposition and parenchymal amyloid plaques in the spinal cord of a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Neurobiol 57:278–289 DOI: 10.1007/s12035-019-01697-4.
    OpenUrl
  198. ↵
    1. Zhan X,
    2. Stamova B, and
    3. Sharp FR
    (2018) Lipopolysaccharide associates with amyloid plaques, neurons and oligodendrocytes in Alzheimer’s disease brain: a review. Front Aging Neurosci 10:42 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00042.
    OpenUrl
  199. ↵
    1. Zhao J,
    2. Bi W,
    3. Xiao S,
    4. Lan X,
    5. Cheng X,
    6. Zhang J,
    7. Lu D,
    8. Wei W,
    9. Wang Y,
    10. Li H, et al.
    (2019) Neuroinflammation induced by lipopolysaccharide causes cognitive impairment in mice. Sci Rep 9:5790 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42286-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. ↵
    1. Zhou X,
    2. Zöller T,
    3. Krieglstein K, and
    4. Spittau B
    (2015) TGFβ1 inhibits IFNγ-mediated microglia activation and protects mDA neurons from IFNγ-driven neurotoxicity. J Neurochem 134:125–134 DOI: 10.1111/jnc.13111.
    OpenUrl
  201. ↵
    1. Zhu C,
    2. Kros JM,
    3. van der Weiden M,
    4. Zheng P,
    5. Cheng C, and
    6. Mustafa DAM
    (2017) Expression site of P2RY12 in residential microglial cells in astrocytomas correlates with M1 and M2 marker expression and tumor grade. Acta Neuropathol Commun 5:4 DOI: 10.1186/s40478-016-0405-5.
    OpenUrl
  202. ↵
    1. Zhu YP,
    2. Thomas GD, and
    3. Hedrick CC
    (2016) 2014 Jeffrey M. Hoeg Award Lecture: Transcriptional Control of Monocyte Development. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 36:1722–1733 DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.304054.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  203. ↵
    1. Zrzavy T,
    2. Hametner S,
    3. Wimmer I,
    4. Butovsky O,
    5. Weiner HL, and
    6. Lassmann H
    (2017) Loss of ‘homeostatic’ microglia and patterns of their activation in active multiple sclerosis. Brain 140:1900–1913 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awx113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  204. ↵
    1. Zvěřová M
    (2019) Clinical aspects of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Biochem 72:3–6 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.04.015.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Pharmacological Reviews: 74 (1)
Pharmacological Reviews
Vol. 74, Issue 1
1 Jan 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Pharmacological Reviews article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Targeting Systemic Innate Immune Cells as a Therapeutic Avenue for Alzheimer Disease
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Pharmacological Reviews
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Pharmacological Reviews.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Review ArticleReview Article

Innate Immunity and Alzheimer's Disease

Vincent Pons and Serge Rivest
Pharmacological Reviews January 1, 2022, 74 (1) 1-17; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pharmrev.121.000400

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Review ArticleReview Article

Innate Immunity and Alzheimer's Disease

Vincent Pons and Serge Rivest
Pharmacological Reviews January 1, 2022, 74 (1) 1-17; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pharmrev.121.000400
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • I. Alzheimer Disease
    • II. Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy
    • III. Innate Immune System
    • IV. Development of Monocytic Lineage
    • V. The Role of Monocytes
    • VI. Microglia Development and Role
    • VII. Modulation of the Innate Immune System in AD
    • VIII. Targeting the mCSF/CSFS1R Axis
    • IX. Triggering Patrolling Monocytes to Clear Vascular Aβ
    • X. Targeting TLR4
    • XI. Final Remarks
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Review of Natural Language Processing in Pharmacology
  • PHARMACOGENOMICS: Driving Personalized Medicine
  • Potassium Channels in Parkinson's Disease
Show more Review article

Similar Articles

Advertisement
  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About Pharmacological Reviews
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-0081 (Online)

Copyright © 2023 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics