4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Impact of aging immune system on neurodegeneration and potential immunotherapies

期刊

PROGRESS IN NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 2-28

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.07.006

关键词

Immune system; Aging; Inflammation; Neurodegeneration; Immunotherapy

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation for General and Key Programs [81130055, 31470860, 81400954, 81371396]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2017YFA0105002]
  3. Knowledge Innovation Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA04020202-19]
  4. China Manned Space Flight Technology Project [TZ-1]
  5. CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction between the nervous and immune systems during aging is an area of avid interest, but many aspects remain unclear. This is due, not only to the complexity of the aging process, but also to a mutual dependency and reciprocal causation of alterations and diseases between both the nervous and immune systems. Aging of the brain drives whole body systemic aging, including aging-related changes of the immune system. In turn, the immune system aging, particularly immunosenescence and T cell aging initiated by thymic involution that are sources of chronic inflammation in the elderly (termed inflammaging), potentially induces brain aging and memory loss in a reciprocal manner. Therefore, immunotherapeutics including modulation of inflammation, vaccination, cellular immune therapies and protective autoimmunity provide promising approaches to rejuvenate neuroinflammatory disorders and repair brain injury. In this review, we summarize recent discoveries linking the aging immune system with the development of neurodegeneration. Additionally, we discuss potential rejuvenation strategies, focusing aimed at targeting the aging immune system in an effort to prevent acute brain injury and chronic neurodegeneration during aging. (C) 2017 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

4.7
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