Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
A Chaperome Subnetwork Safeguards Proteostasis in Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease
Marc Brehme, Cindy Voisine, Thomas Rolland, Shinichiro Wachi, James H. Soper, Yitan Zhu, Kai Orton, Adriana Villella et al.. Cell Reports, 2014-10-24
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Chaperones are central to the proteostasis network (PN) and safeguard the proteome from misfolding, aggregation, and proteotoxicity. We categorized the human chaperome of 332 genes into network communities using function, localization, interactome, and expression data sets. During human brain aging, expression of 32% of the chaperome, corresponding to ATP-dependent chaperone machines, is repressed, whereas 19.5%, corresponding to ATP-independent chaperones and co-chaperones, are induced. These repression and induction clusters are enhanced in the brains of those with Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or Parkinson's disease. Functional properties of the chaperome were assessed by perturbation in C. elegans and human cell models expressing Aβ, polyglutamine, and Huntingtin. Of 219 C. elegans orthologs, knockdown of 16 enhanced both Aβ and polyQ-associated toxicity. These correspond to 28 human orthologs, of which 52% and 41% are repressed, respectively, in brain aging and disease and 37.5% affected Huntingtin aggregation in human cells. These results identify a critical chaperome subnetwork that functions in aging and disease.
Key findings
- These results identify a critical chaperome subnetwork that functions in aging and disease.
Study details
- Effect size19.5%; 37.5%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cell Reports) |
| 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 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 25437566) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Brehme, M., Voisine, C., Rolland, T., Wachi, S., Soper, J. H., Zhu, Y., et al. (2014). A Chaperome Subnetwork Safeguards Proteostasis in Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease. Cell Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.042
Vancouver
Brehme M, Voisine C, Rolland T, Wachi S, Soper JH, Zhu Y, et al. A Chaperome Subnetwork Safeguards Proteostasis in Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease. Cell Reports. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.042. PMID: 25437566.
BibTeX
@article{brehme2014-25437566,
author = {Brehme, Marc and Voisine, Cindy and Rolland, Thomas and Wachi, Shinichiro and Soper, James H. and Zhu, Yitan and Orton, Kai and Villella, Adriana and others},
title = {{A Chaperome Subnetwork Safeguards Proteostasis in Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease}},
journal = {Cell Reports},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.042},
pmid = {25437566},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.042}
}