4.8 Article

Cleavage of tau by asparagine endopeptidase mediates the neurofibrillary pathology in Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1254-1262

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.3700

关键词

-

资金

  1. RO1 from the US National Institutes of Health [NS045627, NS060680]
  2. US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers [P50AG025688]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81100958, 91132305]
  4. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2010CB945202]
  5. National Science Foundation of China [81330030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), composed of truncated and hyperphosphorylated tau, are a common feature of numerous aging-related neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the molecular mechanisms mediating tau truncation and aggregation during aging remain elusive. Here we show that asparagine endopeptidase (AEP), a lysosomal cysteine proteinase, is activated during aging and proteolytically degrades tau, abolishes its microtubule assembly function, induces tau aggregation and triggers neurodegeneration. AEP is upregulated and active during aging and is activated in human AD brain and tau P301S-transgenic mice with synaptic pathology and behavioral impairments, leading to tau truncation in NFTs. Tau P301S-transgenic mice with deletion of the gene encoding AEP show substantially reduced tau hyperphosphorylation, less synapse loss and rescue of impaired hippocampal synaptic function and cognitive deficits. Mice infected with adeno-associated virus encoding an uncleavable tau mutant showed attenuated pathological and behavioral defects compared to mice injected with adeno-associated virus encoding tau P301S. Together, these observations indicate that AEP acts as a crucial mediator of tau-related clinical and neuropathological changes. Inhibition of AEP may be therapeutically useful for treating tau-mediated neurodegenerative diseases.

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

4.8
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