4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Genetic heterogeneity of Azheimer's disease: Complexity and advances

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 S62-S70

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.05.015

关键词

monogenic; sporadic; APP; PS1; PS2; APOE; polymorphism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most of what we know about the pathological process of Alzheimer's disease (AD) results from research on the amyloid cascade hypothesis. This hypothesis in turn is derived largely from the characterization of rare disease-causing mutations in three genes, which code for the amyloid precursor protein (APP), presenilin 1 (PS-1) and presenilin 2 (PS-2) and account for most cases of early-onset autosomal dominant familial AD. These genetic findings also suggested that better understanding of the genetic components of AD, even in the late-onset sporadic forms of the disease, might help to identify central pathways of the AD process and lead to the rapid development of active molecules. Twin studies have reinforced the rationale of this approach, for they indicate that more than 50% of the late-onset AD risk may be attributable to genetic factors. The 1993 discovery that the apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) allele is genetically associated with increased risk in both sporadic and familial late-onset Alzheimer's disease strongly supports the validity of this genetic approach. Further progress based on this major finding has nonetheless been disappointing and raises questions about it. First, despite intensive researches, the exact role of APOE in the pathophysiological process still remains unknown. Second, the APOE gene is the only gene so far recognized as a consistent genetic determinant of sporadic forms of AD, even though numerous studies have looked for such genes; these disappointing results suggest persistent methodological limitations. However, recent methodologies allowing new strategies may allow important breakthrough. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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