4.5 Article

Compounds that extend longevity are protective in neurodegenerative diseases and provide a novel treatment strategy for these devastating disorders

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111297

关键词

Aging; Alzheimer's disease; Parkinson's disease; Huntington's disease; Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
  4. Fonds de Recherche Quebec Sante (FRQS)
  5. National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While aging is the greatest risk factor for the development of neurodegenerative disease, the role of aging in these diseases is poorly understood. In the inherited forms of these diseases, the disease-causing mutation is present from birth but symptoms appear decades later. This indicates that these mutations are well tolerated in younger individuals but not in older adults. Based on this observation, we hypothesized that changes taking place during normal aging make the cells in the brain (and elsewhere) susceptible to the disease-causing mutations. If so, then delaying some of these age-related changes may be beneficial in the treatment of neurodegenerative disease. In this review, we examine the effects of five compounds that have been shown to extend longevity (metformin, rapamycin, resveratrol, N-acetyl-L-cysteine, curcumin) in four of the most common neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). While not all investigations observe a beneficial effect of these compounds, there are multiple studies that show a protective effect of each of these lifespan-extending compounds in animal models of neurodegenerative disease. Combined with genetic studies, this suggests the possibility that targeting the aging process may be an effective strategy to treat neurodegenerative disease.

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