4.6 Review

Endogenous versus exogenous cell replacement for Parkinson's disease: where are we at and where are we going?

期刊

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 2637-2642

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.336137

关键词

endogenous; neurodegenerative disease; neurogenesis; neurotrophic factors; Parkinson's disease; stem cells; transdifferentiation; transplantations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease is a common neurodegenerative disorder with no effective treatment. Cell replacement therapy shows promise in treating Parkinson's disease, but there are still significant limitations and questions to be addressed.
Parkinson's disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease and has currently no effective treatment, one that would be able to stop or reverse the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. In addition, Parkinson's disease diagnosis is typically done when a significant percentage of the dopaminergic neurons is already lost. In neurodegenerative disorders, some therapeutic strategies could be effective only at inhibiting further degeneration; on the other hand, cell replacement therapies aim at replacing lost neurons, an approach that would be ideal for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Many cell replacement therapies have been tested since the 1970s in the field of Parkinson's disease; however, there are still significant limitations prohibiting a successful clinical application. From the first fetal midbrain intrastriatal graft to the most recent conversion of astrocytes into dopaminergic neurons, we have gained equally, significant insights and questions still looking for an answer. This review aims to summarize the main milestones in cell replacement approaches against Parkinson's disease. By focusing on achievements and failures, as well as on the additional research steps needed, we aim to provide perspective on how future cell replacement therapies treats Parkinson's 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

4.6
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