4.5 Article

Age- and region-dependent alterations in Aβ-degrading enzymes:: implications for Aβ-induced disorders

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 645-654

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2004.06.013

关键词

amyloid beta-protein; insulin-degrading enzyme; neprilysin; A beta; AD; IDE; IBM

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG26175, AG0212982] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulation of amyloid beta-protein (Abeta) is a fundamental feature of certain human brain disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Down syndrome and also of the skeletal muscle disorder inclusion body myositis (IBM). Emerging evidence suggests that the steady-state levels of Abeta are determined by the balance between production and degradation. Although the proteolytic processes leading to Abeta formation have been extensively studied, less is known about the proteases that degrade Abeta, which include insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE) and neprilysin (NEP). Here we measured the steady-state levels of these proteases as a function of age and brain/muscle region in mice and humans. In the hippocampus, which is vulnerable to AD pathology, IDE and NEP steady-state levels diminish as function of age. By contrast, in the cerebellum, a brain region not marked by significant Abeta accumulation, NEP and IDE levels either increase or remain unaltered during aging. Moreover, the steady-state levels of IDE and NEP are significantly higher in the cerebellum compared to the cortex and hippocampus. We further show that IDE is more oxidized in the hippocampus compared to the cerebellum of AD patients. In muscle, we find differential levels of IDE and NEP in fast versus slow twitch muscle fibers that varies with aging. These findings suggest that age- and region-specific changes in the proteolytic clearance of Abeta represent a critical pathogenic mechanism that may account for the susceptibility of particular brain or muscle regions in AD and IBM. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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