Home › Research › Clinical safety
Endo-lysosomal and autophagic dysfunction: a driving factor in Alzheimer's disease?
Whyte LS, Lau AA, Hemsley KM, Hopwood JJ, Sargeant TJ.. Journal of neurochemistry, 2017-01-23
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, and its prevalence will increase significantly in the coming decades. Although important progress has been made, fundamental pathogenic mechanisms as well as most hereditary contributions to the sporadic form of the disease remain unknown. In this review, we examine the now substantial links between AD pathogenesis and lysosomal biology. The lysosome hydrolyses and processes cargo delivered by multiple pathways, including endocytosis and autophagy. The endo-lysosomal and autophagic networks are central to clearance of cellular macromolecules, which is important given there is a deficit in clearance of amyloid-β in AD. Numerous studies show prominent lysosomal dysfunction in AD, including perturbed trafficking of lysosomal enzymes and accumulation of the same substrates that accumulate in lysosomal storage disorders. Examination of the brain in lysosomal storage disorders shows the accumulation of amyloid precursor protein metabolites, which further links lysosomal dysfunction with AD. This and other evidence leads us to hypothesise that genetic variation in lysosomal genes modifies the disease course of sporadic AD.
Key findings
- Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, and its prevalence will increase significantly in the coming decades.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurochemistry) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 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 | 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 28027395) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Whyte, L. S., Lau, A. A., Hemsley, K. M., Hopwood, J. J., & Sargeant, T. J. (2017). Endo-lysosomal and autophagic dysfunction: a driving factor in Alzheimer's disease? Journal of neurochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.13935
Vancouver
Whyte LS, Lau AA, Hemsley KM, Hopwood JJ, Sargeant TJ. Endo-lysosomal and autophagic dysfunction: a driving factor in Alzheimer's disease? Journal of neurochemistry. 2017. doi:10.1111/jnc.13935. PMID: 28027395.
BibTeX
@article{whyte2017-28027395,
author = {Whyte, L. S. and Lau, A. A. and Hemsley, K. M. and Hopwood, J. J. and Sargeant, T. J.},
title = {{Endo-lysosomal and autophagic dysfunction: a driving factor in Alzheimer's disease?}},
journal = {Journal of neurochemistry},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1111/jnc.13935},
pmid = {28027395},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.13935}
}
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also tagged “amyloid-beta”
1,339 studies in the library carry the topic tag “amyloid-beta”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,339 tagged studies.