4.6 Review

Distinguishing normal brain aging from the development of Alzheimer's disease: inflammation, insulin signaling and cognition

期刊

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 1719-1730

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.238608

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; aging; inflammation; cognitive function; spatial learning; insulin signaling; synapses; cytokines

资金

  1. Department of Education and Learning, Northern Ireland, UK
  2. Department of Education and Learning, Northern Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As populations age, prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is rising. Over 100 years of research has provided valuable insights into the pathophysiology of the disease, for which age is the principal risk factor. However, in recent years, a multitude of clinical trial failures has led to pharmaceutical corporations becoming more and more unwilling to support drug development in AD. It is possible that dependence on the amyloid cascade hypothesis as a guide for preclinical research and drug discovery is part of the problem. Accumulating evidence suggests that amyloid plaques and tau tangles are evident in non-demented individuals and that reducing or clearing these lesions does not always result in clinical improvement. Normal aging is associated with pathologies and cognitive decline that are similar to those observed in AD, making differentiation of AD-related cognitive decline and neuropathology challenging. In this mini-review, we discuss the difficulties with discerning normal, age-related cognitive decline with that related to AD. We also discuss some neuropathological features of AD and aging, including amyloid and tau pathology, synapse loss, inflammation and insulin signaling in the brain, with a view to highlighting cognitive or neuropathological markers that distinguish AD from normal aging. It is hoped that this review will help to bolster future preclinical research and support the development of clinical tools and therapeutics for AD.

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