Home › Research › Drug development
Targeting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor for neurodegenerative disorders
Verma MK, Verma MK, Goel R, Krishnadas N, Nemmani KVS.. Expert opinion on therapeutic targets, 2018-06-22
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Introduction Incretin hormones, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) exert pleiotropic effects on endocrine pancreas and nervous system. Expression of GIP and GIP receptor (GIPR) in neurons, their roles in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, neurotransmission, and neuromodulation uniquely position GIPR for therapeutic applications in neurodegenerative disorders. GIP analogs acting as GIPR agonists attenuate neurobehavioral and neuropathological sequelae of neurodegenerative disorders in preclinical models, e.g. Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and cerebrovascular disorders. Modulation of GIPR signaling offers an unprecedented approach for disease modification by arresting neuronal viability decline, enabling neuronal regeneration, and reducing neuroinflammation. Growth-promoting effects of GIP signaling and broad-based neuroprotection highlight the therapeutic potential of GIPR agonists. Areas covered: This review focuses on the role of GIPR-mediated signaling in the central nervous system in neurophysiological and neuropathological conditions. In context of neurodegeneration, the article summarizes potential of targeting GIPR signaling for neurodegenerative conditions such as AD, PD, traumatic brain injury, and cerebrovascular disorders. Expert opinion: GIPR represents a validated therapeutic target for neurodegenerative disorders. GIPR agonists impart symptomatic improvements, slowed neurodegeneration, and enhanced neuronal regenerative capacity in preclinical models. Modulation of GIPR signaling is potentially a viable therapeutic approach for disease modification in neurodegenerative disorders.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Verma, M. K., Goel, R., Krishnadas, N., & Nemmani, K. V. S. (2018). Targeting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor for neurodegenerative disorders. Expert opinion on therapeutic targets. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728222.2018.1487952
Vancouver
Verma MK, Goel R, Krishnadas N, Nemmani KVS. Targeting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor for neurodegenerative disorders. Expert opinion on therapeutic targets. 2018. doi:10.1080/14728222.2018.1487952. PMID: 29911915.
BibTeX
@article{verma2018-29911915,
author = {Verma, M. K. and Goel, R. and Krishnadas, N. and Nemmani, K. V. S.},
title = {{Targeting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor for neurodegenerative disorders}},
journal = {Expert opinion on therapeutic targets},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1080/14728222.2018.1487952},
pmid = {29911915},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14728222.2018.1487952}
}
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
- Areas covered: This review focuses on the role of GIPR-mediated signaling in the central nervous system in neurophysiological and neuropathological conditions.
- In context of neurodegeneration, the article summarizes potential of targeting GIPR signaling for neurodegenerative conditions such as AD, PD, traumatic brain injury, and cerebrovascular disorders.
- Expert opinion: GIPR represents a validated therapeutic target for neurodegenerative disorders.
- GIPR agonists impart symptomatic improvements, slowed neurodegeneration, and enhanced neuronal regenerative capacity in preclinical models.
- Modulation of GIPR signaling is potentially a viable therapeutic approach for disease modification in neurodegenerative disorders.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
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 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 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 (Expert opinion on therapeutic targets) |
| 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 | 2018 — 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) |
| 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 29911915) |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.