Home › Research › Treatments
A beta amyloidogenesis: unique, or variation on a systemic theme?
Kisilevsky R, Fraser PE.. Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology, 1997-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
For more than a century amyloid was considered to be an interesting, unique, but inconsequential pathologic entity that rarely caused significant clinical problems. We now recognize that amyloid is not one entity. In vivo it is a uniform organization of a disease, or process, specific protein co-deposited with a set of common structural components. Amyloid has been implicated in the pathogenesis of diseases affecting millions of patients. These range from Alzheimer's disease, adult-onset diabetes, consequences of prolonged renal dialysis, to the historically recognized systemic forms associated with inflammation and plasma cell disturbances. Strong evidence is emerging that even when deposited in local organ sites significant physiologic effects may ensue. With emphasis on A beta amyloid, we review the present definition, classification, and general in vivo pathogenetic events believed to be involved in the deposition of amyloids. This encompasses the need for an adequate amyloid precursor protein pool, whether precursor proteolysis is required prior to deposition, amyloidogenic amino acid sequences, fibrillogenic nucleating particles, and an in vivo microenvironment conducive to fibrillogenesis. The latter includes several components that seem to be part of all amyloids. The role these common components may play in amyloid accumulation, why amyloids tend to be associated with basement membranes, and how one may use these findings for anti-amyloid therapeutic strategies is also examined.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kisilevsky, R., & Fraser, P. E. (1997). A beta amyloidogenesis: unique, or variation on a systemic theme? Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology. https://doi.org/10.3109/10409239709082674
Vancouver
Kisilevsky R, Fraser PE. A beta amyloidogenesis: unique, or variation on a systemic theme? Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology. 1997. doi:10.3109/10409239709082674. PMID: 9383610.
BibTeX
@article{kisilevsky1997-9383610,
author = {Kisilevsky, R. and Fraser, P. E.},
title = {{A beta amyloidogenesis: unique, or variation on a systemic theme?}},
journal = {Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology},
year = {1997},
doi = {10.3109/10409239709082674},
pmid = {9383610},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3109/10409239709082674}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- For more than a century amyloid was considered to be an interesting, unique, but inconsequential pathologic entity that rarely caused significant clinical problems.
- These range from Alzheimer's disease, adult-onset diabetes, consequences of prolonged renal dialysis, to the historically recognized systemic forms associated with inflammation and plasma cell disturbances.
- Strong evidence is emerging that even when deposited in local organ sites significant physiologic effects may ensue.
- The role these common components may play in amyloid accumulation, why amyloids tend to be associated with basement membranes, and how one may use these findings for anti-amyloid therapeutic strategies is also examined.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9383610) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.