4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Evidence of Oxidant Damage in Huntington's Disease: Translational Strategies Using Antioxidants

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1196/annals.1427.008

关键词

oxidative stress; creatine; coenzyme Q(10)

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [U01NS045806] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS045806] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant inherited neurodegenerative disorder characterized by progressive motor dysfunction, emotional disturbances, dementia, and weight loss. It is caused by an expanded trinucleotide CAG repeat in the gene coding for the protein, huntingtin. Although no one specific interaction of mutant huntingtin has been suggested to be the pathologic trigger, a large body of evidence suggests that, in both the human condition and in HD mice, oxidative stress may play a role in the pathogenesis of HD. Increased levels of oxidative damage products, including protein nitration, lipid peroxidation, DNA oxidation, and exacerbated lipofuscin accumulation, occur in HD. Strong evidence exists for early oxidative stress in HD, coupled with mitochondrial dysfunction, each exacerbating the other and leading to an energy deficit. If oxidative damage plays a role in HD, then therapeutic strategies that reduce reactive oxygen species may ameliorate the neurodegenerative process. Two such strategies, using coenzyme Q(10) and creatine, have been proposed. Although each agent has had limited efficacy in HD patients, the optimal therapeutic dose may have been underestimated. High-dose coenzyme Q(10) and creatine are safe and tolerable in HD patients and are currently under investigation. In addition, there are parallels in reducing markers of oxidative stress in both HD mice and HD patients after treatment. It is likely that high-dose coenzyme Q(10), creatine, or both agents, will represent a cornerstone defense in ameliorating the progression of HD.

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