Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Neuroprotective potential of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors from Natural Sources in Combating Neurodegenerative Diseases
N V, D R J, Sarkar R, Nongthomba U, K P P, Shiva Shankar L, R V, Rudraswami N et al.. ScienceOpen Preprints, 2026-09-08
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
Neurodegenerative diseases comprise a diverse group of progressive disorders characterized by the selective and irreversible loss of neuronal structure and function within the specific regions of the central and/or peripheral nervous systems. Emerging studies have reported them as systemic conditions involving the gut-brain axis, which plays a major role in how these diseases initiation and propagation of inflammation. Theys show diverse clinical and pathological topographies and lead to a gradual deterioration in cognitive, motor, and other higher neurological functions. Neurodegeneration is distinguished by primary neuronal loss rather than damage secondary to external insults. Alzheimer’s disease, the most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder, is marked by amyloid-β plaque deposition, extensive synaptic dysfunction and neurofibrillary tangles, resulting in progressive cognitive impairment. Current therapeutic approaches are mainly symptomatic, underscoring the requirement for improved understanding and innovative disease-modifying strategies prevent or stop disease progression. The ability of many secondary metabolites, including alkaloids, terpenoids, polyphenols and fungal bioactive compounds, to modify key molecular pathways involved in neurodegeneration has already been established. The current narrative review explores the potential of fungal and plant metabolites as promising candidates for the development of novel therapeutic strategies against neurodegenerative diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sarkar, R., Nongthomba, U., Shiva Shankar, L., Rudraswami, N., et al. (2026). Neuroprotective potential of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors from Natural Sources in Combating Neurodegenerative Diseases. ScienceOpen Preprints. https://doi.org/10.14293/pr2199.004339.v1
Vancouver
Sarkar R, Nongthomba U, Shiva Shankar L, Rudraswami N, et al. Neuroprotective potential of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors from Natural Sources in Combating Neurodegenerative Diseases. ScienceOpen Preprints. 2026. doi:10.14293/pr2199.004339.v1.
BibTeX
@article{sarkar2026-eba68491,
author = {Sarkar, R. and Nongthomba, U. and Shiva Shankar, L. and Rudraswami, N. and others},
title = {{Neuroprotective potential of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors from Natural Sources in Combating Neurodegenerative Diseases}},
journal = {ScienceOpen Preprints},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.14293/pr2199.004339.v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14293/pr2199.004339.v1}
}
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.
Key findings
- Neurodegeneration is distinguished by primary neuronal loss rather than damage secondary to external insults.
- Alzheimer’s disease, the most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder, is marked by amyloid-β plaque deposition, extensive synaptic dysfunction and neurofibrillary tangles, resulting in progressive cognitive impairment.
- Current therapeutic approaches are mainly symptomatic, underscoring the requirement for improved understanding and innovative disease-modifying strategies prevent or stop disease progression.
- The ability of many secondary metabolites, including alkaloids, terpenoids, polyphenols and fungal bioactive compounds, to modify key molecular pathways involved in neurodegeneration has already been established.
- The current narrative review explores the potential of fungal and plant metabolites as promising candidates for the development of novel therapeutic strategies against neurodegenerative diseases.
Study details
- Study designnarrative review
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. 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 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 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (ScienceOpen Preprints) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “narrative review”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Disease mechanisms
Also tagged “plants”
117 studies in the library carry the topic tag “plants”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 117 tagged studies.