4.4 Review

Extracellular heat shock proteins in neurodegenerative diseases: New perspectives

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 711, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2019.134462

关键词

Extracellular; Heat shock protein; Neurodegenerative; Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Alzheimer's disease; Stress

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [NS091953]
  2. Blazeman Foundation for ALS
  3. Tab Williams Family Endowment
  4. WFSM Brian White ALS Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One pathological hallmark of neurodegenerative diseases and CNS trauma is accumulation of insoluble, hydrophobic molecules and protein aggregations found both within and outside cells. These may be the consequences of an inadequate or overburdened cellular response to stresses resulting from potentially toxic changes in extra- and intracellular environments. The upregulated expression of heat shock proteins (HSPs) is one example of a highly conserved cellular response to both internal and external stress. Intracellularly these proteins act as chaperones, playing vital roles in the folding of nascent polypeptides, the translocation of proteins between subcellular locations, and the disaggregation of misfolded or aggregated proteins in an attempt to maintain cellular proteostasis during both homeostatic and stressful conditions. While the predominant study of the HSPs has focused on their intracellular chaperone functions, it remains unclear if all neuronal populations can mount a complete stress response. Alternately, it is now well established that some members of this family of proteins can be secreted by nearby, non-neuronal cells to act in the extracellular environment. This review addresses the current literature detailing the use of exogenous and extracellular HSPs in the treatment of cellular and animal models of neurodegenerative disease. These findings offer a new measure of therapeutic potential to the HSPs, but obstacles must be overcome before they can be efficiently used in a clinical setting.

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

4.4
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