4.6 Review

Neuroprotection or Neurotoxicity of Illicit Drugs on Parkinson's Disease

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life10060086

关键词

Parkinson's Disease; phytocannabinoids; amphetamine-type stimulants; novel psychoactive substances; cocaine; opioids

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [02/SAICT/2017/029656, iNOVA4Health-UID/Multi/04462/2013]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia/Ministerio da Educacao e Ciencia, Portugal
  3. Egas Moniz Cooperativa de Ensino Superior
  4. FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's Disease (PD) is currently the most rapid growing neurodegenerative disease and over the past generation, its global burden has more than doubled. The onset of PD can arise due to environmental, sporadic or genetic factors. Nevertheless, most PD cases have an unknown etiology. Chemicals, such as the anthropogenic pollutant 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) and amphetamine-type stimulants, have been associated with the onset of PD. Conversely, cannabinoids have been associated with the treatment of the symptoms'. PD and medical cannabis is currently under the spotlight, and research to find its benefits on PD is on-going worldwide. However, the described clinical applications and safety of pharmacotherapy with cannabis products are yet to be fully supported by scientific evidence. Furthermore, the novel psychoactive substances are currently a popular alternative to classical drugs of abuse, representing an unknown health hazard for young adults who may develop PD later in their lifetime. This review addresses the neurotoxic and neuroprotective impact of illicit substance consumption in PD, presenting clinical evidence and molecular and cellular mechanisms of this association. This research area is utterly important for contemporary society since illicit drugs' legalization is under discussion which may have consequences both for the onset of PD and for the treatment of its symptoms.

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