4.2 Article

Histological and Direct Evidence for the Role of Complement in the Neuroinflammation of AD

期刊

CURRENT ALZHEIMER RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 34-58

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/156720511794604589

关键词

Complement; complement receptors; Alzheimer's disease; amyloid; microglia; neuroinflammation

资金

  1. Stichting Dioraphte
  2. Internationale Stichting Alzheimer Onderzoek [03-509, 06-517]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Alzheimers's disease (AD) a disturbed balance between synthesis and removal of A beta leads to the formation of A beta deposits and a reaction of the innate immune system. Little evidence exists for a contribution of the adaptive immune response in AD, as no signs of influx of blood borne cells or presence of immunoglobulins in A beta deposits are apparent. Factors of the complement (C) system and pentraxins act as pattern recognition molecules and mediate uptake of A beta by glial cells expressing C-receptors (Crec). These interactions may, however, also lead to synthesis and secretion of reactive oxygen species (ROS), cytokines, chemokines and other potentially neurotoxic agents by the glial cells. Virtually all complement factors are produced in brain, and the expression is increased in AD affected brain areas. In AD brain areas with amyloid deposits especially classical pathway C activation products are readily observed. Also C regulatory proteins (Creg) and Crec can be found in the brain parenchyma and are upregulated, especially under acute inflammatory conditions, such as meningitis. However, under chronic low-grade inflammatory conditions, such as in AD, Creg and to some extent Crec expression may remain at a low level, thereby allowing C activation to proceed, leading to sustained activation of glial cells and neurodegenerative changes. In this review evidence from immunohistochemical, in vitro and animal studies pointing to a role for C activation is discussed, with special focus on the disturbed balance between C activators and Cregs in AD.

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

4.2
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