4.5 Article

Amyloid-beta Degradation and Neuroprotection of Dauricine Mediated by Unfolded Protein Response in a Caenorhabditis elegans Model of Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 392, 期 -, 页码 25-37

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.09.022

关键词

dauricine; unfolded protein response; ER-associated degradation; A beta; Alzheimer's disease

资金

  1. Opening Foundation of National Laboratory [CMEMR2018-B06]
  2. Major Special Foundation of Guangxi Science and Technology Department [AA17292001]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81260496, 81760239]
  4. United States National Institutes of Health - Office of Research Infrastructure Programs [P40 OD010440]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amyloid plaque is a prominent pathologic hallmark in the brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and it has been shown to be associated with endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response. However the precise regulation mechanism of amyloid-beta (A beta) toxicity remains unclear. Here, we found that dauricine could activate X-box binding protein 1 (XBP-1; active form XBP-1S) and eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF2 alpha and thus delay the progression of AD in the A beta(1-42)-transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans CL2120. The ER stress response factor XBP-1 can be activated and shows neuroprotective activity through acceleration of An clearance. Our study reveals that dauricine activates the ire-1 ixbp-1 and perk/e/IF2 alpha pathways of the unfolded protein response, attenuates translation, and enhances ER-associated degradation, which reduces A beta expression and attenuates An-associated toxicity. On the contrary, xbp-1 depletion counteracts the effects of dauricine on Apassociated toxicity. These results underscore the functional relevance of XBP-1 in An toxicity and degradation, and highlight the potentially pharmacodynamic value of dauricine in preventing the progression of AD. (C) 2018 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据