4.6 Review

Nanotechnologies for Alzheimer's disease: diagnosis, therapy, and safety issues

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2011.03.008

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Nanotechnology; Nanoparticles; A beta peptide; Drug delivery

资金

  1. European Community [212043]
  2. French Ministry of Research
  3. CNRS
  4. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (Det Strategiske Forskningsrad) [09-065746/DSF]
  5. Lundbeck S/A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents the most common form of dementia worldwide, affecting more than 35 million people. Advances in nanotechnology are beginning to exert a significant impact in neurology. These approaches, which are often based on the design and engineering of a plethora of nanoparticulate entities with high specificity for brain capillary endothelial cells, are currently being applied to early AD diagnosis and treatment. In addition, nanoparticles (NPs) with high affinity for the circulating amyloid-beta (A beta) forms may induce sink effect and improve the AD condition. There are also developments in relation to in vitro diagnostics for AD, including ultrasensitive NP-based bio-barcodes, immunosensors, as well as scanning tunneling microscopy procedures capable of detecting A beta(1-40) and A beta(1-42). However, there are concerns regarding the initiation of possible NP-mediated adverse events in AD, thus demanding the use of precisely assembled nanoconstructs from biocompatible materials. Key advances and safety issues are reviewed and discussed. From the Clinical Editor: This excellent review summarizes the impact of nanotechnology on the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease, ranging from circulating amyloid sinks to NP-based bio-barcodes and many other recent advances, without neglecting potential pitfalls, side effects and safety issues. A must read for anyone interested in the evolving interface of clinical neurosciences and nanotechnology. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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