4.8 Review

Rab GTPases and Membrane Trafficking in Neurodegeneration

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages R471-R486

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.010

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB958, SFB/TRR186]
  2. NeuroCure Cluster Berlin
  3. National Institute of Health [RO1EY018884, RO1EY023333]
  4. Muscular Dystrophy Association of the USA
  5. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY018884, R01EY023333] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Defects in membrane trafficking are hallmarks of neurodegeneration. Rab GTPases are key regulators of membrane trafficking. Alterations of Rab GTPases, or the membrane compartments they regulate, are associated with virtually all neuronal activities in health and disease. The observation that many Rab GTPases are associated with neurodegeneration has proven a challenge in the quest for cause and effect. Neurodegeneration can be a direct consequence of a defect in membrane trafficking. Alternatively, changes in membrane trafficking may be secondary consequences or cellular responses. The secondary consequences and cellular responses, in turn, may protect, represent inconsequential correlates or function as drivers of pathology. Here, we attempt to disentangle the different roles of membrane trafficking in neurodegeneration by focusing on selected associations with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and selected neuropathies. We provide an overview of current knowledge on Rab GTPase functions in neurons and review the associations of Rab GTPases with neurodegeneration with respect to the following classifications: primary cause, secondary cause driving pathology or secondary correlate. This analysis is devised to aid the interpretation of frequently observed membrane trafficking defects in neurodegeneration and facilitate the identification of true causes of pathology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available