4.4 Article

The Multiple Phenotypes of Corticobasal Syndrome and Corticobasal Degeneration: Implications for Further Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR NEUROSCIENCE
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 350-353

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12031-011-9624-1

关键词

Corticobasal degeneration; Corticobasal syndrome; Apraxia; Alien limb phenomenon; Tau

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG06786, AG16574]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corticobasal degeneration (CBD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder which nomenclature of which its nomenclature and characterization continues to evolve. The core clinical features that have been considered characteristic of the disorder include progressive asymmetric rigidity and apraxia, with other findings suggesting additional cortical (e.g., alien limb phenomena, cortical sensory loss, myoclonus, and mirror movements) and basal ganglionic (e.g., bradykinesia, dystonia, and tremor) dysfunctions. The characteristic findings at autopsy are asymmetric cortical atrophy that is typically maximal in the frontoparietal regions, as well as basal ganglia and nigral degeneration. Microscopically, abnormal accumulations of the microtubule-associated tau protein are found in both neurons and glia, and this disorder is now considered one of the tauopathies. CBD was initially thought to represent a distinct clinicopathologic entity. Recent studies have shown considerable clinicopathologic heterogeneity, leading some to use the term corticobasal syndrome (CBS) for the constellation of findings initially considered characteristic of the disorder, and the term corticobasal degeneration for the histopathologic disorder. In this review, the multiple phenotypes/syndromes associated with CBD pathology, and multiple diseases associated with the CBS, are presented. The clinicopathologic heterogeneity in CBS/CBD and the implications of this heterogeneity on clinical practice, on understanding the focal/asymmetric cerebral degeneration syndromes, and on future research are all reviewed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据