4.6 Review

A Tale on Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 993-1002

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.23696

关键词

6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA); 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP); synuclein; LRRK2; rat; mouse; primate

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-07-JCJC-0090, ANR-08-MNP-018, ANR-07-MNP-Trafinlid]
  2. NIH [AG021617, NS042269, NS062180, NS064191, NS38370]
  3. U.S. Department of Defense [W81XWH-08-1-0522, W81XWH-08-1-0465]
  4. Parkinson Disease Foundation (New York, NY)
  5. Thomas Hartman Foundation for Parkinson's Research
  6. MDA/Wings-over-Wall Street
  7. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-07-JCJC-0090] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder whose cardinal manifestations are due primarily to a profound deficit in brain dopamine. Since the 1980s, several therapeutic strategies have been discovered to treat the symptoms of this neurological disorder, but as of yet, none halts or retards the neurodegenerative process. In an attempt to shed light on the neurobiology of Parkinson's disease, a number of experimental models have been developed, especially during the last 25 years. They come essentially in 3 flavors: pharmacological (eg, reserpine), toxic (eg, 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine), and genetic (eg, transgenic synuclein mice). These models can also be recast as etiologic, pathogenic, and symptomatic/pathophysiologic, as each may contribute to our understanding of the cause, the mechanisms, and the treatment of Parkinson's disease. In this review, we will discuss the question of Parkinson's disease models, starting from the period when this journal was born to today. During this journey of 25 years, we will discuss both the significant contributions of the Parkinson's disease models and hurdles that remain to be overcome to one day cure this neurological disease. (C) 2011 Movement Disorder Society

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

4.6
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