Home › Research › Drug development
Lithium neuroprotection: molecular mechanisms and clinical implications
Rowe MK, Chuang DM.. Expert reviews in molecular medicine, 2004-10-18
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Lithium has emerged as a neuroprotective agent efficacious in preventing apoptosis-dependent cellular death. Lithium neuroprotection is provided through multiple, intersecting mechanisms, although how lithium interacts with these mechanisms is still under investigation. Lithium increases cell survival by inducing brain-derived neurotrophic factor and thereby stimulating activity in anti-apoptotic pathways, including the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt and the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways. In addition, lithium reduces pro-apoptotic function by directly and indirectly inhibiting glycogen synthase kinase-3beta activity and indirectly inhibiting N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor-mediated calcium influx. Lithium-induced regulation of anti- and pro-apoptotic pathways alters a wide variety of downstream effectors, including beta-catenin, heat shock factor 1, activator protein 1, cAMP-response-element-binding protein, and the Bcl-2 protein family. Lithium neuroprotection has a wide variety of clinical implications. Beyond its present use in bipolar mood disorder, lithium's neuroprotective abilities imply that it could be used to treat or prevent brain damage following traumatic injury, such as stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rowe, M. K., & Chuang, D. M. (2004). Lithium neuroprotection: molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Expert reviews in molecular medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1462399404008385
Vancouver
Rowe MK, Chuang DM. Lithium neuroprotection: molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Expert reviews in molecular medicine. 2004. doi:10.1017/s1462399404008385. PMID: 15488156.
BibTeX
@article{rowe2004-15488156,
author = {Rowe, M. K. and Chuang, D. M.},
title = {{Lithium neuroprotection: molecular mechanisms and clinical implications}},
journal = {Expert reviews in molecular medicine},
year = {2004},
doi = {10.1017/s1462399404008385},
pmid = {15488156},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1462399404008385}
}
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
- Lithium increases cell survival by inducing brain-derived neurotrophic factor and thereby stimulating activity in anti-apoptotic pathways, including the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt and the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways.
- In addition, lithium reduces pro-apoptotic function by directly and indirectly inhibiting glycogen synthase kinase-3beta activity and indirectly inhibiting N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor-mediated calcium influx.
- Lithium-induced regulation of anti- and pro-apoptotic pathways alters a wide variety of downstream effectors, including beta-catenin, heat shock factor 1, activator protein 1, cAMP-response-element-binding protein, and the Bcl-2 protein family.
- Lithium neuroprotection has a wide variety of clinical implications.
- Beyond its present use in bipolar mood disorder, lithium's neuroprotective abilities imply that it could be used to treat or prevent brain damage following traumatic injury, such as stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases.
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 randomized / 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 multicenter 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 (Expert reviews in molecular medicine) |
| 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 | 2004 — 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15488156) |
| 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.