4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Preliminary studies of a novel bifunctional metal chelator targeting Alzheimer's amyloidogenesis

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
卷 39, 期 11-12, 页码 1641-1649

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2004.08.016

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; amyloid precursor protein (APP); A beta amyloid; metals; metal chelator

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG21081, AG13846] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [5K01MH02001] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of evidence indicates that dysregulation of cerebral biometals (Fe, Cu, Zn) and their interactions with APP and Abeta amyloid may contribute to the Alzheimer's amyloid pathology, and thus metal chelation could be a rational therapeutic approach for interdicting AD pathogenesis. However, poor target specificity and consequential clinical safety of current metal-complexing agents have limited their widespread clinical use. To develop the next generation of metal chelators, we have designed and synthesized a new bifunctional molecule-XH1, based on a novel 'pharmacophore conjugation' concept. This lipophilic molecule has both amyloid-binding and metal-chelating moieties covalently connected by amide bonds. It achieved a putative binding geometry with Abeta1-40 peptide by the computational chemistry modeling and reduced Zn(II)-induced Abeta1-40 aggregation in vitro as determined by turbidometry. Moreover, our pilot data indicated that XH1 has no significant neurotoxicity at low micromolar concentrations and acute animal toxicity. XH1 specifically reduced APP protein expression in human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells and attenuated cerebral Abeta amyloid pathology in PS1/APP transgenic mice without inducing apparent toxicity and behavior disturbances. Collectively, these preliminary findings carry implication for XH1 being a BBB-permeable lead compound for AD therapeutics targeting Alzheimer's amyloidogenesis, although further studies are needed. (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