Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
TRPMLs and TPCs: Targets for lysosomal storage and neurodegenerative disease therapy?
Einar Krogsaeter, Anna Scotto Rosato, Christian Grimm. Cell calcium, 2022-02-05
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Neurodegenerative diseases (ND) pose a serious health burden to society and healthcare systems alike, with increasing incidence rates especially within aging populations. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent type of ND or dementia, followed by Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Huntington's disease. Progressive neurological dysfunction and regional neuronal loss constitute the common characteristics of ND. Many ND are accompanied by accumulation of protein aggregates such as extracellular amyloid-β (in AD), intraneuronal hyper-phosphorylated tau (in AD), or α-synuclein (in PD). Two main systems are responsible for the clearance of damaged, dysfunctional or senescent proteins inside cells: the autophagy-lysosomal pathway and the ubiquitin-proteasome system. The importance of lysosomes in neurodegenerative processes is further highlighted by clinical phenotypes of lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs), comprising more than 70 inheritable diseases caused by mutations in lysosomal enzymes or lysosomal membrane proteins, often resulting in severe neurodegeneration. Dysfunctional lysosomal proteins and enzymes result in the lysosomal accumulation of undigested macromolecules, e.g. lipids, glycoproteins, glycosaminoglycans, or gangliosides. Defects in intracellular transport pathways involving endosomes and lysosomes are increasingly recognized as drivers of neurodegenerative disease pathology including AD and PD. Thus, accumulation of damaged proteins and organelles (e.g. mitochondria) in neurons and glial cells overwhelms the capacity of intracellular recycling and degradation mechanisms, exacerbating disease pathology. Endolysosomal ion channels have recently been established as important regulators of lysosomal exocytosis, ion homeostasis/pH, endolysosomal trafficking, fusion and fission, and autophagy. In particular two non-selective endolysosomal cation channel families, the mucolipin/TRPML/MCOLN channels and the two-pore channels/TPCs will be discussed here as potential pharmacological targets for LSD/ND treatment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Krogsaeter, E., Rosato, A. S., & Grimm, C. (2022). TRPMLs and TPCs: Targets for lysosomal storage and neurodegenerative disease therapy? Cell calcium. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceca.2022.102553
Vancouver
Krogsaeter E, Rosato AS, Grimm C. TRPMLs and TPCs: Targets for lysosomal storage and neurodegenerative disease therapy? Cell calcium. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ceca.2022.102553. PMID: 35144097.
BibTeX
@article{krogsaeter2022-35144097,
author = {Krogsaeter, Einar and Rosato, Anna Scotto and Grimm, Christian},
title = {{TRPMLs and TPCs: Targets for lysosomal storage and neurodegenerative disease therapy?}},
journal = {Cell calcium},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.ceca.2022.102553},
pmid = {35144097},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceca.2022.102553}
}
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
- Dysfunctional lysosomal proteins and enzymes result in the lysosomal accumulation of undigested macromolecules, e.g. lipids, glycoproteins, glycosaminoglycans, or gangliosides.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cell calcium) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 35144097) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.