4.7 Review

Iron- and Neuromelanin-Weighted Neuroimaging to Study Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Patients with Parkinson's Disease

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232213678

关键词

Parkinson's disease; mitochondria; iron; neuromelanin; neuroimaging; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI)

资金

  1. GP2 (Global Parkinson's Genetics Programm) Under represented populations (UPR) consortium
  2. Chilean National ANID Ph.D. scholarship
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [BR4328.2-1 [FOR2488], GRK1957]
  4. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  5. Parkinson's Foundation
  6. Deutsche Parkinsongesellschaft
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via the Clinician Scientist School Lubeck [DFG-GEPRIS 413535489]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review emphasizes the biological rationale for studying the pathways of Parkinson's disease and discusses the application of various neuroimaging methods in patients, as well as the limitations and challenges that need to be overcome for successful implementation in clinical studies.
The underlying causes of Parkinson's disease are complex, and besides recent advances in elucidating relevant disease mechanisms, no disease-modifying treatments are currently available. One proposed pathophysiological hallmark is mitochondrial dysfunction, and a plethora of evidence points toward the interconnected nature of mitochondria in neuronal homeostasis. This also extends to iron and neuromelanin metabolism, two biochemical processes highly relevant to individual disease manifestation and progression. Modern neuroimaging methods help to gain in vivo insights into these intertwined pathways and may pave the road to individualized medicine in this debilitating disorder. In this narrative review, we will highlight the biological rationale for studying these pathways, how distinct neuroimaging methods can be applied in patients, their respective limitations, and which challenges need to be overcome for successful implementation in clinical studies.

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

4.7
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