Home › Research › Treatments
Comparative study of rivastigmine and galantamine on the transgenic Drosophila model of Alzheimer's disease
Yasir Hasan Siddique, Falaq Naz, Rahul, Himanshi Varshney. Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery, 2022-07-31
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is characterized as a progressive neurodegenerative disease most commonly associated with memory deficits and cognitive decline. The formation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles are important pathological markers of AD. The accumulation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles leads to the loss of neurons including the cholinergic neurons thus decreasing the levels of acetylcholine (a neurotransmitter). To reduce the AD symptoms cholinesterase inhibitors are widely used to decrease the hydrolysis of acetylcholine released from presynaptic neurons. In the present study we have studied the effect of rivastigmine and galantamine (commonly used cholinesterase inhibitors) on the transgenic Drosophila model of AD expressing human Aβ-42 in the neurons. The effect of similar doses of rivastigmine and galantamine (i.e. 0.1,1 and 10 mM) was studied on the climbing ability, lifespan, oxidative stress markers, caspase 9 and 3, acetylcholinesterase activity and on the formation of Aβ-42 aggregates. The results suggest that the rivastigmine is more potent in reducing the oxidative stress and improving climbing ability of AD flies. Both the drugs were found to be effective in increasing the lifespan of AD flies. Galantamine was found to be a more potent inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase compared to rivastigmine. Galantamine prevents the formation of Aβ-42 aggregates more effectively compared to rivastigmine.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Siddique, Y. H., Naz, F., Rahul, & Varshney, H. (2022). Comparative study of rivastigmine and galantamine on the transgenic Drosophila model of Alzheimer's disease. Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crphar.2022.100120
Vancouver
Siddique YH, Naz F, Rahul, Varshney H. Comparative study of rivastigmine and galantamine on the transgenic Drosophila model of Alzheimer's disease. Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.crphar.2022.100120. PMID: 35992376.
BibTeX
@article{siddique2022-35992376,
author = {Siddique, Yasir Hasan and Naz, Falaq and Rahul and Varshney, Himanshi},
title = {{Comparative study of rivastigmine and galantamine on the transgenic Drosophila model of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.crphar.2022.100120},
pmid = {35992376},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crphar.2022.100120}
}
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
- Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is characterized as a progressive neurodegenerative disease most commonly associated with memory deficits and cognitive decline.
- The results suggest that the rivastigmine is more potent in reducing the oxidative stress and improving climbing ability of AD flies.
- Galantamine was found to be a more potent inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase compared to rivastigmine.
- Galantamine prevents the formation of Aβ-42 aggregates more effectively compared to rivastigmine.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Laboratory or animal study (title names “transgenic”) — scores zero |
| 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 35992376) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “repurposing”
234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “repurposing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.