Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Endo-lysosomal pathway and ubiquitin-proteasome system dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis
Jiqing Cao, Margaret B Zhong, Carlos A Toro, Larry Zhang, Dongming Cai. Neuroscience letters, 2019-03-16
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Several lines of evidence have shown that defects in the endo-lysosomal autophagy degradation pathway and the ubiquitin-proteasome system play a role in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Early pathological changes, such as marked enlargement of endosomal compartments, gradual accumulation of autophagic vacuoles (AVs) and lysosome dyshomeostasis, are well-recognized in AD. In addition to these pathological indicators, many genetic variants of key regulators in the endo-lysosomal autophagy networks and the ubiquitin-proteasome system have been found to be associated with AD. Furthermore, altered expression levels of key proteins in these pathways have been found in AD human brain tissues, primary cells and AD mouse models. In this review, we discuss potential disease mechanisms underlying the dysregulation of protein homeostasis governing systems. While the importance of two major protein degradation pathways in AD pathogenesis has been highlighted, targeted therapy at key components of these pathways has great potential in developing novel therapeutic interventions for AD. Future investigations are needed to define molecular mechanisms by which these complex regulatory systems become malfunctional at specific stages of AD development and progression, which will facilitate future development of novel therapeutic interventions. It is also critical to investigate all key components of the protein degradation pathways, both upstream and downstream, to improve our abilities to manipulate transport pathways with higher efficacy and less side effects.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cao, J., Zhong, M. B., Toro, C. A., Zhang, L., & Cai, D. (2019). Endo-lysosomal pathway and ubiquitin-proteasome system dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis. Neuroscience letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2019.03.016
Vancouver
Cao J, Zhong MB, Toro CA, Zhang L, Cai D. Endo-lysosomal pathway and ubiquitin-proteasome system dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis. Neuroscience letters. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2019.03.016. PMID: 30890471.
BibTeX
@article{cao2019-30890471,
author = {Cao, Jiqing and Zhong, Margaret B and Toro, Carlos A and Zhang, Larry and Cai, Dongming},
title = {{Endo-lysosomal pathway and ubiquitin-proteasome system dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis}},
journal = {Neuroscience letters},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.neulet.2019.03.016},
pmid = {30890471},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2019.03.016}
}
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
- Several lines of evidence have shown that defects in the endo-lysosomal autophagy degradation pathway and the ubiquitin-proteasome system play a role in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathogenesis and pathophysiology.
- In addition to these pathological indicators, many genetic variants of key regulators in the endo-lysosomal autophagy networks and the ubiquitin-proteasome system have been found to be associated with AD.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience letters) |
| 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 | 2019 — 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 30890471) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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 Disease mechanisms
Also tagged “autophagy”
240 studies in the library carry the topic tag “autophagy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 240 tagged studies.