Although soluble oligomeric and protofibrillar assemblies of Aβ-amyloid peptide cause synaptotoxicity and potentially contribute to Alzheimer's disease (AD), the role of mature Aβ-fibrils in the amyloid plaques remains controversial. A widely held view in the field suggests that the fibrillization reaction proceeds ‘forward' in a near-irreversible manner from the monomeric Aβ peptide through toxic protofibrillar intermediates, which subsequently mature into biologically inert amyloid fibrils that are found in plaques. Here, we show that natural lipids destabilize and rapidly resolubilize mature Aβ amyloid fibers. Interestingly, the equilibrium is not reversed toward monomeric Aβ but rather toward soluble amyloid protofibrils. We characterized these ‘backward' Aβ protofibrils generated from mature Aβ fibers and compared them with previously identified ‘forward' Aβ protofibrils obtained from the aggregation of fresh Aβ monomers. We find that backward protofibrils are biochemically and biophysically very similar to forward protofibrils: they consist of a wide range of molecular masses, are toxic to primary neurons and cause memory impairment and tau phosphorylation in mouse. In addition, they diffuse rapidly through the brain into areas relevant to AD. Our findings imply that amyloid plaques are potentially major sources of soluble toxic Aβ-aggregates that could readily be activated by exposure to biological lipids.

ADAM10 is involved in the proteolytic processing and shedding of proteins such as the amyloid precursor protein (APP), cadherins, and the Notch receptors, thereby initiating the regulated intramembrane proteolysis (RIP) of these proteins. Here, we demonstrate that the sheddase ADAM10 is also subject to RIP. We identify ADAM9 and -15 as the proteases responsible for releasing the ADAM10 ectodomain, and Presenilin/␥-Secretase as the protease responsible for the release of the ADAM10 intracellular domain (ICD). This domain then translocates to the nucleus and localizes to nuclear speckles, thought to be involved in gene regulation. Thus, ADAM10 performs a dual role in cells, as a metalloprotease when it is membrane-bound, and as a potential signaling protein once cleaved by ADAM9/15 and the ␥-Secretase. ADAMs8 (A disintegrin and metalloprotease) are type 1 transmembrane proteins related to snake venom integrin ligands and metalloproteases. All 38 different family members feature a common modular ectodomain structure (1-4) (Fig. 1A). In addition to the membrane-bound, full-length prototype, soluble ADAM variants have also been identified, consisting of only the ectodomain or fragments thereof that are released into the intercellular space. Such variants are generated by partial gene duplication (ADAM9) (5), alternative splicing (ADAM12) (6, 7), or proteolysis (ADAMs 8, 13, and 19) (8 -10). ADAMs can be grouped either by their tissue distribution and/or functional properties. One major group (ADAMs 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, and 30) is expressed exclusively in the male gonad, with an emerging role in sperm maturation. A second group (ADAMs 2,7,11,18,22,23,and 29) is characterized by an inactive protease domain, and they seem to be mainly important for cell adhesion and fusion. A large third group of ADAMs displays a broad expression profile and has demonstrated (ADAMs 8,9,10,12,17,19, and 28) or predicted (ADAMs 15,20,21,30, and 33) proteolytic activity. These proteases play a major role in the ectodomain shedding of proteins involved in paracrine signaling, cell adhesion, and intracellular signaling (reviewed in Refs. 11 and 12). The site specificity of the cleavage of these substrates is rather relaxed, and apparently different family members can mutually compensate for each other. This has been illustrated particularly well for the amyloid precursor protein (APP) (13-17).ADAM10 is one of the proteolytically active ADAM members (15, 18 -21). The list of ADAM10 substrates is still growing, confirming the central role of ADAM10 in many important biological processes, such as cell migration and axonal navigation (robo receptors and ephrins (22, 23), cell adhesion (cadherins (19, 21), CD44 and L1 (24)), and regulation of immune reactions, and control of apoptosis (FasL) (25). Importantly, genetic ablation of ADAM10 in vertebrates (15) and invertebrates (26 -29) mainly results in loss of Notch phenotypes, indicating the crucial role for this protease in the Notch signaling pathway (30,31). Finally, AD...

No abstract

With the discovery of the blocking effect, learning theory took a huge leap forward, because blocking provided a crucial clue that surprise is what drives learning. This in turn stimulated the development of novel association-formation theories of learning. Eventually, the ability to explain blocking became nothing short of a touchstone for the validity of any theory of learning, including propositional and other nonassociative theories. The abundance of publications reporting a blocking effect and the importance attributed to it suggest that it is a robust phenomenon. Yet, in the current article we report 15 failures to observe a blocking effect despite the use of procedures that are highly similar or identical to those used in published studies. Those failures raise doubts regarding the canonical nature of the blocking effect and call for a reevaluation of the central status of blocking in theories of learning. They may also illustrate how publication bias influences our perspective toward the robustness and reliability of seemingly established effects in the psychological literature.