4.6 Review

Potential Crosstalk between the PACAP/VIP Neuropeptide System and Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-Relevance to Multiple Sclerosis Pathophysiology

Journal

CELLS
Volume 12, Issue 22, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells12222633

Keywords

pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP); vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP); endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress; unfolded protein response (UPR); multiple sclerosis; neuroinflammation; microglia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the role of pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) in alleviating endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress in multiple sclerosis (MS), emphasizing the importance of this potential interaction in identifying new therapeutic targets for MS and other demyelinating disorders.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disorder characterized by focal demyelination and chronic inflammation of the central nervous system (CNS). Although the exact etiology is unclear, mounting evidence indicates that endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress represents a key event in disease pathogenesis. Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) are two structurally related neuropeptides that are abundant in the CNS and are known to exert neuroprotective and immune modulatory roles. Activation of this endogenous neuropeptide system may interfere with ER stress processes to promote glial cell survival and myelin self-repair. However, the potential crosstalk between the PACAP/VIP system and ER stress remains elusive. In this review, we aim to discuss how these peptides ameliorate ER stress in the CNS, with a focus on MS pathology. Our goal is to emphasize the importance of this potential interaction to aid in the identification of novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of MS and other demyelinating disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available