Home › Research › Treatments
Trans-crocetin improves amyloid-β degradation in monocytes from Alzheimer's Disease patients
Tiribuzi R, Crispoltoni L, Chiurchiù V, Casella A, Montecchiani C, Del Pino AM, Maccarrone M, Palmerini CA et al.. Journal of the neurological sciences, 2016-11-06
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Herbal medicines have been recently employed in research and clinical studies for the potential treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms associated with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and other types of dementia. The present study investigates the effect of trans-crocetin, an active constituent of Crocus sativus L., to restore in vitro the reduced ability of AD patients' monocytes to degrade amyloid-β (1-42) (Aβ 42 ). CD14 + monocytes from 22 sporadic AD patients with moderate cognitive impairment were isolated; then, the role of trans-crocetin, purified from saffron extracts, was evaluated in terms of Aβ 42 degradation rate through flow cytometry, as well as expression of cathepsin B by Western blotting. We observed that low micromolar doses of trans-crocetin enhanced Aβ 42 degradation in AD monocytes through the upregulation of the lysosomal protease cathepsin B. CA074Me, a potent and selective cathepsin B inhibitor, counteracted such trans-crocetin-induced effect. These data suggest that the carotenoid trans-crocetin improves in vitro the clearance of Aβ 42 through the involvement of cathepsin B, and this could be of value in developing a new anti-amyloid strategy in AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tiribuzi, R., Crispoltoni, L., Chiurchiù, V., Casella, A., Montecchiani, C., Del Pino, A. M., et al. (2017). Trans-crocetin improves amyloid-β degradation in monocytes from Alzheimer's Disease patients. Journal of the neurological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.004
Vancouver
Tiribuzi R, Crispoltoni L, Chiurchiù V, Casella A, Montecchiani C, Del Pino AM, et al. Trans-crocetin improves amyloid-β degradation in monocytes from Alzheimer's Disease patients. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.004. PMID: 27865556.
BibTeX
@article{tiribuzi2017-27865556,
author = {Tiribuzi, R. and Crispoltoni, L. and Chiurchiù, V. and Casella, A. and Montecchiani, C. and Del Pino, A. M. and Maccarrone, M. and Palmerini, C. A. and others},
title = {{Trans-crocetin improves amyloid-β degradation in monocytes from Alzheimer's Disease patients}},
journal = {Journal of the neurological sciences},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.004},
pmid = {27865556},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.004}
}
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
- Herbal medicines have been recently employed in research and clinical studies for the potential treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms associated with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
- We observed that low micromolar doses of trans-crocetin enhanced Aβ 42 degradation in AD monocytes through the upregulation of the lysosomal protease cathepsin B.
- These data suggest that the carotenoid trans-crocetin improves in vitro the clearance of Aβ 42 through the involvement of cathepsin B, and this could be of value in developing a new anti-amyloid strategy in AD.
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 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 the neurological sciences) |
| 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 27865556) |
| 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.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “monocytes”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monocytes”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.