4.8 Article

Intrinsically aggregation-prone proteins form amyloid-like aggregates and contribute to tissue aging in Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

ELIFE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.43059

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Deutsches Zentrum fur Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen
  2. European Commission [322120]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  4. Wellcome [203249/Z/16/Z]
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/N012453/1]
  6. Alzheimer' s Research UK [ARUK-PG2013-14]
  7. Infinitus China Ltd
  8. Alzheimer' s Research UK
  9. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/P027431/1, BB/R021805/1]
  10. BBSRC [BB/P027431/1, BB/R021805/1, BB/H023917/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. MRC [MR/N012453/1, MC_G1000734, MR/K02292X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Wellcome Trust [203249/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced protein homeostasis leading to increased protein instability is a common molecular feature of aging, but it remains unclear whether this is a cause or consequence of the aging process. In neurodegenerative diseases and other amyloidoses, specific proteins self-assemble into amyloid fibrils and accumulate as pathological aggregates in different tissues. More recently, widespread protein aggregation has been described during normal aging. Until now, an extensive characterization of the nature of age-dependent protein aggregation has been lacking. Here, we show that age-dependent aggregates are rapidly formed by newly synthesized proteins and have an amyloid-like structure resembling that of protein aggregates observed in disease. We then demonstrate that age-dependent protein aggregation accelerates the functional decline of different tissues in C. elegans. Together, these findings imply that amyloid-like aggregates contribute to the aging process and therefore could be important targets for strategies designed to maintain physiological functions in the late stages of life.

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