4.5 Review

Combining Gene Transfer and Nonhuman Primates to Better Understand and Treat Parkinson's Disease

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnmol.2019.00010

关键词

Parkinson's disease; primate; CAV vectors; gene transfer; dopaminergic neurons

资金

  1. BrainCAV (EC FP7) [292222]
  2. BrainVector (EC FP7) [286071]
  3. Region Languedoc Roussillon
  4. France Parkinson's
  5. Universite de Montpellier
  6. IGMM
  7. LabEx EpiGenMed
  8. Investissements d'Avenir Program (PIA)
  9. MMDN
  10. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI15/01816]
  11. INSERM
  12. Swiss National Foundation [31003A_179527]
  13. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM)
  14. [ANR-10-LABX-12-01]
  15. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_179527] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive CNS disorder that is primarily associated with impaired movement. PD develops over decades and is linked to the gradual loss of dopamine delivery to the striatum, via the loss of dopaminergic (DA) neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc). While the administration of L-dopa and deep brain stimulation are potent therapies, their costs, side effects and gradual loss of efficacy underlines the need to develop other approaches. Unfortunately, the lack of pertinent animal models that reproduce DA neuron loss and behavior deficits-in a timeline that mimics PD progression-has hindered the identification of alternative therapies. A complementary approach to transgenic animals is the use of nonhuman primates (NHPs) combined with the overexpression of disease-related genes using viral vectors. This approach may induce phenotypes that are not influenced by developmental compensation mechanisms, and that take into account the personality of animals. In this review article, we discuss the combination of gene transfer and NHPs to develop genetic models of PD that are suitable for testing therapeutic approaches.

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

4.5
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