As the year is coming to an end humanity might have finally not only cured but reversed Alzheimer's

cartaphilus said:
Yes it's a mouse model and not Rhesus Monkey or human but still this is the first time we reversed the damage and restored brain function in advanced stage AD.

Click to expand...
You’re right that this is a mouse-model paper, and the authors are explicitly framing it as a “proof of principle” that advanced AD-like pathology can be therapeutically reversible in those models, rather than only preventable.

What the paper is claiming (in mice)
The Cell Reports Medicine study (online ahead of print; dated December 22, 2025) reports that treating symptomatic/advanced transgenic AD mouse models with P7C3-A20 (described as restoring NAD+ homeostasis) led to improvements across multiple readouts, including:
  • Reversal of several AD-associated pathology markers (e.g., tau phosphorylation, blood-brain barrier deterioration, oxidative stress/DNA damage, neuroinflammation)
  • Improvements in hippocampal neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity
  • Behavioral “full cognitive recovery” in their test battery
  • Reduction of plasma p-tau217 (a biomarker used clinically in humans) in the mouse experiments
These claims are reflected in the PubMed record/abstract. ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41435831/))

Why “reversed Alzheimer’s” still needs careful wording
Even if the data are solid, it’s worth keeping the framing precise:
  • The models (5xFAD, PS19) capture specific aspects of AD biology, but they are not the same as naturally occurring, late-stage human Alzheimer’s.
  • “Restored brain function” in mice generally means improved performance in rodent behavioral tasks plus improved lab markers—not restoration of a human patient’s lost cognitive abilities.
  • Many interventions over the years have “reversed” deficits in mouse AD models; translation to meaningful human benefit has historically been the hard part.

Is it the first time?
I can’t confidently endorse the “first time ever” claim without defining exactly what counts as “reversal” and doing a full literature comparison. What I can say from the paper’s own positioning is that they are emphasizing (a) intervention at an “advanced” stage in their models, (b) broad multi-domain readouts (BBB, inflammation, synaptic physiology, behavior), and (c) cross-referencing to human brain proteomic patterns as “therapeutic nodes.” ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41435831/))

Translation / practical takeaways
  • This is still preclinical. It’s an encouraging result, but it does not establish reversal of advanced Alzheimer’s in humans.
  • The PubMed conflict-of-interest section notes related patents and a company connection, which doesn’t invalidate the science but is relevant context. ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41435831/))
  • The next real inflection point is independent replication and then well-designed human trials (and the ScienceDaily/UH write-up also frames it that way). ([sciencedaily.com](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/12/251224032354.htm))

Net: it’s a noteworthy “reversal” result in advanced-stage mouse models with a mechanistic angle (NAD+ homeostasis), but it’s not yet evidence that advanced Alzheimer’s is reversible in people; the next step is replication plus clinical trial data.
 

You may also like...