4.5 Review

Novel neuroprotective, neuritogenic and anti-amyloidogenic properties of 2,4-dinitrophenol: The gentle face of Janus

期刊

IUBMB LIFE
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 185-191

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1080/15216540600702198

关键词

2,4-dinitrophenol; low concentrations; neuroprotection; amyloid-beta peptide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Roman mythology, Janus was the god of gates, doors, beginnings and endings. He was usually depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions. Janus was frequently used to symbolize change and transitions, such as the progression from past to future or from one viewpoint to another. 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP) and other nitrophenols have long been known to be toxic at high concentrations (the `bad' face of DNP), an effect that appears essentially related to interference with cellular energy metabolism due to uncoupling of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Five years ago, however, we published the first report showing that low concentrations of DNP protect neurons against the toxicity of the amyloid-beta peptide [De Felice et al. (2001) FASEB J. 15: 1297-1299]. Since then, other studies have provided evidence of beneficial actions of DNP (at low concentrations), including neuroprotection against different types of insult, blockade of amyloid aggregation, stimulation of neurite outgrowth and neuronal differentiation, and even extension of lifespan in certain organisms. Some of these effects appear to be due to mild mitochondrial uncoupling and prevention of cellular oxidative stress, whereas other actions are related to activation of additional intracellular signaling pathways. Thus, a novel and `gentle' face of DNP is emerging from such studies. In this review, we discuss both toxic and beneficial actions of DNP. The evidence available so far suggests that DNP and other compounds with similar biological activities may be of significant interest to the development of novel therapeutic approaches for neurodegenerative diseases and other neurological disorders.

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