[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
cimb-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases

A special issue of Current Issues in Molecular Biology (ISSN 1467-3045). This special issue belongs to the section "Molecular Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 March 2025 | Viewed by 8976

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Personalized Genomics Laboratory, Undergraduate Medical Academy, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA
Interests: cancer therapy; cancer biomarker; neurogenomics; systems biology; intercellular communication; neurotransmission
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue, “Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases 2024”, presents a meticulous examination of the molecular mechanisms underpinning diverse neurological disorders. This compilation of articles showcases pioneering research elucidating the roles of specific molecules in the etiology and progression of these conditions.

Contributions to this Special Issue span a spectrum of topics, encompassing the influence of neurotransmitters, neuropeptides, and neurotrophic factors on cerebral function and dysfunction. Researchers delve into the intricate interplay of genetic and epigenetic elements in neurological disorders, illuminating potential therapeutic targets.

Furthermore, this Special Issue underscores the latest advancements in neuroimaging modalities and their utility in diagnosing and monitoring neurological diseases. Insights into the evolution of innovative therapeutic approaches, such as gene therapy and pharmacological interventions, are also detailed.

In summary, "Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases 2024" offers a comprehensive portrayal of the molecular landscape of neurological disorders. This body of work provides invaluable insights that may pave the way for the development of more efficacious treatments in the future.

Dr. Dumitru Iacobas
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Current Issues in Molecular Biology is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • neurological diseases
  • neurotransmitters
  • neuropeptides
  • neurotrophic factors
  • genetic and epigenetic elements

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (6 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

23 pages, 3822 KiB  
Article
BDNF/Cyclin D1 Signaling System and Cognitive Performance After Perampanel and Lacosamide Treatment Singly or in Combination in an Experimental Model of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
by Michaela Shishmanova-Doseva and Darina Barbutska
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(12), 14010-14032; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46120838 - 11 Dec 2024
Viewed by 892
Abstract
Epilepsy is a common brain function disorder. The present study aims to evaluate the long-term effect of perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), administered singly in a high-dose or in a low-dose combination of both, on comorbid anxiety, cognitive impairment, BDNF, and Cyclin D1 [...] Read more.
Epilepsy is a common brain function disorder. The present study aims to evaluate the long-term effect of perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), administered singly in a high-dose or in a low-dose combination of both, on comorbid anxiety, cognitive impairment, BDNF, and Cyclin D1 hippocampal expression in an experimental model of temporal lobe epilepsy with lithium–pilocarpine. PRM (3 mg/kg, p.o.)/LCM (30 mg/kg, p.o.) or PRM+LCM (0.5 mg/kg + 3 mg/kg, p.o.) treatments were administered three hours after the lithium–pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus and continued for up to ten weeks in adult Wistar rats. Our study demonstrated that perampanel and lacosamide administered singly in high doses improved epilepsy-associated cognitive impairment through ameliorating anxiety and facilitating passive learning and memory, with spatial and recognition memory measured in the elevated plus maze, step-through, Y-maze, and object recognition tests, respectively. In addition, the combination of both drugs in low doses demonstrated similar anxiolytic and cognitive-improving effects compared to the singly administered drugs. Moreover, the three experimental groups enhanced the hippocampal expression of the neurotrophic factor BDNF and mitigated the increased levels of the apoptotic factor Cyclin D1. These beneficial effects could be essential mechanisms through which administered anticonvulsants preserve neuronal survival and homeostasis in the CNS and especially in the hippocampus. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Timeline of the experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the discrimination index in the object recognition test in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-veh group vs. C-veh group; <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. C-veh group, * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>#</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the spontaneous alternations (%) in the Y-maze test in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>A</b>). Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the latency time (s) during a learning session in the step-through passive avoidance test in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group. (<b>B</b>). Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the latency time (s) during a memory retention test in the step-through passive avoidance test in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the number of entries in open arms in the elevated plus maze test in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the time (s) spent in open arms in the elevated plus maze test (300 s total time) in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the anxiety index in the elevated plus maze test in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Immunohistochemical expression of BDNF in the dorsal hippocampus. C-veh group (<b>A1</b>–<b>A5</b>), Li-Pilo-veh group (<b>B1</b>–<b>B5</b>), Li-Pilo-PRM group (<b>C1</b>–<b>C5</b>), Li-Pilo-LCM group (<b>D1</b>–<b>D5</b>), Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group (<b>E1</b>–<b>E5</b>). Higher magnifications of the rectangles in all five groups are given. Scale bars = 200 µm (<b>A1</b>,<b>B1</b>,<b>C1</b>,<b>D1</b>,<b>E1</b>); 50 µm (<b>A2</b>–<b>A5</b>,<b>B2</b>–<b>B5</b>,<b>C2</b>–<b>C5</b>,<b>D2</b>–<b>D5</b>,<b>E2</b>–<b>E5</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the BDNF levels (RU) in animals with a model of temporal lobe epilepsy: (<b>A</b>) in the hippocampal CA1 subfield, <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group. (<b>B</b>) in the hippocampal CA2 subfield, <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; (<b>C</b>) in the hippocampal CA3 subfield, <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001, Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group and (<b>D</b>) in the granular cell layer in the dentate gyrus, <sup>^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. C-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>A</b>–<b>E</b>). Immunohistochemical expression of Cyclin D1 in the dorsal hippocampus. C-veh group (<b>A1</b>–<b>A5</b>), Li-Pilo-veh group (<b>B1</b>–<b>B5</b>), Li-Pilo-PRM group (<b>C1</b>–<b>C5</b>), Li-Pilo-LCM group (<b>D1</b>–<b>D5</b>), Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group (<b>E1</b>–<b>E5</b>). Higher magnifications of the rectangles in all five groups are given. Scale bars = 200 µm (<b>A1</b>,<b>B1</b>,<b>C1</b>,<b>D1</b>,<b>E1</b>); 50 µm (<b>A2</b>–<b>A5</b>,<b>B2</b>–<b>B5</b>,<b>C2</b>–<b>C5</b>,<b>D2</b>–<b>D5</b>,<b>E2</b>–<b>E5</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Effect of long-term treatment with perampanel (PRM) and lacosamide (LCM), singly or in combination, on the Cyclin D1 levels (RU) in (<b>A</b>) the hippocampal CA1 subfield, <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group, <sup>^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. C-veh group, *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. C-veh group, *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; no significance (N.S.), <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group (<b>B</b>) CA2 subfield, <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group, * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; N.S., <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 C-veh group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-LCM group vs. Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM group; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh (<b>C</b>) CA3 subfield, <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. C-veh group; <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, <sup>^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. C-veh group; <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. C-veh group, *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, Li-Pilo-LCM vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group and (<b>D</b>) in the granular cell layer in the dentate gyrus, <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-veh vs. C-veh group; <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group; <sup>^^^</sup> <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. C-veh group; *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 Li-Pilo-PRM-LCM vs. Li-Pilo-veh group.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3291 KiB  
Article
Assessment of the Concentration of Transforming Growth Factor Beta 1–3 in Degenerated Intervertebral Discs of the Lumbosacral Region of the Spine
by Rafał Staszkiewicz, Dorian Gładysz, Dawid Sobański, Filip Bolechała, Edward Golec, Małgorzata Sobańska, Damian Strojny, Artur Turek and Beniamin Oskar Grabarek
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(11), 12813-12829; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46110763 - 11 Nov 2024
Viewed by 649
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the expression profile of transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β-1-3) to assess the progression of L/S spine degenerative disease. The study group consisted of 113 lumbosacral (L/S) intervertebral disc (IVD) degenerative disease [...] Read more.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the expression profile of transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β-1-3) to assess the progression of L/S spine degenerative disease. The study group consisted of 113 lumbosacral (L/S) intervertebral disc (IVD) degenerative disease patients from whom IVDs were collected during a microdiscectomy, whereas the control group consisted of 81 participants from whom IVDs were collected during a forensic autopsy or organ harvesting. Hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed to exclude degenerative changes in the IVDs collected from the control group. The molecular analysis consisted of reverse-transcription real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Western blotting, and an immunohistochemical analysis (IHC). In degenerated IVDs, we noted an overexpression of all TGF-β-1-3 mRNA isoforms with the largest changes observed for TGF-β3 isoforms (fold change (FC) = 19.52 ± 2.87) and the smallest for TGF-β2 (FC = 2.26 ± 0.16). Changes in the transcriptional activity of TGF-β-1-3 were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Significantly higher concentrations of TGF-β1 (2797 ± 132 pg/mL vs. 276 ± 19 pg/mL; p < 0.05), TGF-β2 (1918 ± 176 pg/mL vs. 159 ± 17 pg/mL; p < 0.05), and TGF-β3 (2573 ± 102 pg/mL vs. 152 ± 11 pg/mL) were observed in degenerative IVDs compared with the control samples. Determining the concentration profiles of TGF-β1-3 appears to be a promising monitoring tool for the progression of degenerative disease as well as for evaluating its treatment or developing new treatment strategies with molecular targets. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Normalized expression of TGF-β-1-3 in IVDs normalized against GAPDH expression. Track 1, molecular weight marker; Track 2, TGF-β-1;Track 3, TGF-β-2; Track 4;, TGF-β-3, Track 5, GAPDH.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Band optical density of TGF-β-1-3 in L/S spine IVDs collected from the study and control groups determined using Western blotting. TGF-β-1-3, transforming growth factor beta isoforms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The immunochemical expression of TGF-β-1-3 in the study and control samples. TGF-β-1-3, transforming growth factor beta 1-3. (<b>A</b>)—expression of TGF-β-1 in the study group; (<b>B</b>)—expression of TGF-β-1 in the control group; (<b>C</b>)—expression of TGF-β-2 in the study group; (<b>D</b>)—expression of TGF-β-2 in the control group; (<b>E</b>)—expression of TGF-β-3 in the study group; (<b>F</b>)—expression of TGF-β-3 in the control group.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 2660 KiB  
Article
The ER Stress Induced in Human Neuroblastoma Cells Can Be Reverted by Lumacaftor, a CFTR Corrector
by Michela Pecoraro, Adele Serra, Maria Pascale and Silvia Franceschelli
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(9), 9342-9358; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46090553 - 24 Aug 2024
Viewed by 1204
Abstract
Most neurodegenerative diseases share a common etiopathogenesis, the accumulation of protein aggregates. An imbalance in homeostasis brought on by the buildup of misfolded proteins within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) results in ER stress in the cell. Three distinct proteins found in the ER [...] Read more.
Most neurodegenerative diseases share a common etiopathogenesis, the accumulation of protein aggregates. An imbalance in homeostasis brought on by the buildup of misfolded proteins within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) results in ER stress in the cell. Three distinct proteins found in the ER membrane—IRE1α, PERK, and ATF6—control the unfolded protein response (UPR), a signal transduction pathway that is triggered to restore normal physiological conditions. Buildup of misfolded proteins in ER lumen leads to a shunting of GRP78/BiP, thus triggering the UPR. PERK autophosphorylation leads to activation of ATF4, the transcription factor; finally, ATF6 activates the UPR’s target genes, including GRP78/Bip. Accordingly, the UPR is a cellular reaction to an ER stress state that, if left unchecked for an extended period, results in apoptosis and irreversible damage. The identification of caspase 4, which is in the ER and is selectively activated by apoptotic stimuli caused by reticular stress, further demonstrated the connection between reticular stress and programed cell death. Moreover, oxidative stress and ER stress are linked. Oxidative stress is brought on by elevated quantities of radical oxygen species, both mitochondrial and cytosolic, that are not under the enzymatic regulation of superoxide dismutases, whose levels fall with increasing stress. Here, we evaluated the activity of Vx-809 (Lumacaftor), a drug used in cystic fibrosis, in SH-SY5Y neuronal cells, in which an ER stress condition was induced by Thapsigargin, to verify whether the drug could improve protein folding, suggesting its possible therapeutic use in proteinopathies, such as neurodegenerative diseases (NDs). Our data show that Vx-809 is involved in the significant reduction in protein produced under ER stress, particularly in the levels of Bip, ATF4, and ATF6 by Western blotting analysis, the reduction in ROS in the cytosol and mitochondria, and the reduction in the activation of the apoptotic pathway, measured by flow cytofluorimetry analysis and in restoring calcium homeostasis. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic representation on the probable effect of Lumacaftor.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Vx-809 affects UPR activation. Cells were pretreated with 300 nM TG for 30 min or 2 or 4 h, to induce ER stress condition. Next, Vx-809 (2 µM) was added for 24 h. BiP (Panel (<b>A</b>)), ATF4 (Panel (<b>C</b>)), ATF6 (Panel (<b>D</b>)) and PERK/pPERK (Panel (<b>E</b>)) expressions in neuroblastoma cells were revealed by Western blotting analysis. Expression of actin or tubulin was employed as a loading control. Panel (<b>B</b>) illustrates the gel migration of the 452 bps unsplit fragment of XBP1 mRNA (XBP1 u) and the 426 bp split fragment (XBP1 s), achieved by RT-PCR. These results are presented as the average ± standard error of at least three separate, triplicate-performed studies. Data were processed according to the Mann–Whitney U-test. * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005, and *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. untreated cells; ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and °° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 vs. Vx-809-treated cells; # <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 vs. TG-treated cells.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Vx-809 affects UPR activation. Cells were pretreated with 300 nM TG for 30 min or 2 or 4 h, to induce ER stress condition. Next, Vx-809 (2 µM) was added for 24 h. BiP (Panel (<b>A</b>)), ATF4 (Panel (<b>C</b>)), ATF6 (Panel (<b>D</b>)) and PERK/pPERK (Panel (<b>E</b>)) expressions in neuroblastoma cells were revealed by Western blotting analysis. Expression of actin or tubulin was employed as a loading control. Panel (<b>B</b>) illustrates the gel migration of the 452 bps unsplit fragment of XBP1 mRNA (XBP1 u) and the 426 bp split fragment (XBP1 s), achieved by RT-PCR. These results are presented as the average ± standard error of at least three separate, triplicate-performed studies. Data were processed according to the Mann–Whitney U-test. * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005, and *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. untreated cells; ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and °° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 vs. Vx-809-treated cells; # <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 vs. TG-treated cells.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Vx-809 hampers calcium signaling. Cells were pretreated with 300 nM TG for 30 min or 1 or 4 h, to induce ER stress. Following this, Vx-809 (2 µM) was added for 24 h. After ER stress, the Vx-809 effect was determined on the reticular calcium pool in cells in calcium-free media in the presence of 1 nM TG (panel (<b>A</b>)), and intracellular calcium concentration was quantified using 1 μM of ionomycin (panel (<b>B</b>)). The results show the mean ± S.E.M. of the delta (δ) increase in the fluorescence of the FURA 2 ratio (340/380 nm) from a minimum of three separate experiments, each carried out in duplicate. The findings are presented as the average ± standard error of duplicate data from a minimum of three separate and identical tests. The Mann–Whitney U test analysis was performed on the data. ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 and *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. untreated cells; ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 vs. Vx-809-treated cells; # <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and ### <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. TG-treated cells.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Vx-809 mitigates the oxidative damage caused by Thapsigargin. To cause ER stress, cells were pretreated with 300 nM TG for 30 min, 1 h, or 4 h. The corrector Vx-809 (2 µM) was then administered for a whole day. The probe 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein diacetate (H<sub>2</sub>DCF-DA) was used to measure the amount of ROS produced in SH-SY5Y cells (Panel (<b>A</b>)). The percentage of DCF-positive cells in at least three independent experiments, each conducted in duplicate, was used to express the mean ± SEM of ROS generation. Using the MitoSOX Red probe, flow cytometry analysis was used to measure the amount of superoxide produced by the mitochondria in cells (Panel (<b>B</b>)). The expression of mitochondrial superoxide generation was calculated as the mean ± standard error of the proportion of cells positive for MitoSOX in three separate tests, each carried out in duplicate. SODIII expressions (Panel (<b>C</b>)) on neuroblastoma cells were detected by a Western blotting assay. Actin protein expression was used as loading control. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to evaluate the data. ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 and *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. untreated cells; ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 vs. Vx-809-treated cells; # <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and ## <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 vs. TG-treated cells.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>Vx-809 mitigates the oxidative damage caused by Thapsigargin. To cause ER stress, cells were pretreated with 300 nM TG for 30 min, 1 h, or 4 h. The corrector Vx-809 (2 µM) was then administered for a whole day. The probe 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein diacetate (H<sub>2</sub>DCF-DA) was used to measure the amount of ROS produced in SH-SY5Y cells (Panel (<b>A</b>)). The percentage of DCF-positive cells in at least three independent experiments, each conducted in duplicate, was used to express the mean ± SEM of ROS generation. Using the MitoSOX Red probe, flow cytometry analysis was used to measure the amount of superoxide produced by the mitochondria in cells (Panel (<b>B</b>)). The expression of mitochondrial superoxide generation was calculated as the mean ± standard error of the proportion of cells positive for MitoSOX in three separate tests, each carried out in duplicate. SODIII expressions (Panel (<b>C</b>)) on neuroblastoma cells were detected by a Western blotting assay. Actin protein expression was used as loading control. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to evaluate the data. ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 and *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. untreated cells; ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 vs. Vx-809-treated cells; # <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and ## <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 vs. TG-treated cells.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Vx-809 alters the process of apoptosis. Neuroblastoma cells were pretreated with 300 nM TG for 30 min, 2 h, or 4 h, to induce ER stress. Subsequently, 2 µM of the Vx-809 was administered for 24 h. After, the cells were stained by propidium iodide, and the fluorescence of individual nuclei was evaluated by flow cytometry (Panel (<b>A</b>)). The data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the percentage of hypodiploid nuclei from a minimum of three independent tests, each carried out in duplicate. The percentage of caspase 4 positive cells (Panel (<b>B</b>)) from at least three separate experiments, each carried out in duplicate, was given as mean ± S.E.M. The Mann–Whitney U test was utilized for data analysis. * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. non-treated cells; ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 vs. Vx-809-treated cells; ## <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.005 and ### <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001 vs. TG-treated cells.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 4106 KiB  
Article
Hypomyelination Leukodystrophy 16 (HLD16)-Associated Mutation p.Asp252Asn of TMEM106B Blunts Cell Morphological Differentiation
by Sui Sawaguchi, Miki Ishida, Yuki Miyamoto and Junji Yamauchi
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(8), 8088-8103; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46080478 - 27 Jul 2024
Viewed by 923
Abstract
Transmembrane protein 106B (TMEM106B), which is a type II transmembrane protein, is believed to be involved in intracellular dynamics and morphogenesis in the lysosome. TMEM106B is known to be a risk factor for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and has been recently identified as the [...] Read more.
Transmembrane protein 106B (TMEM106B), which is a type II transmembrane protein, is believed to be involved in intracellular dynamics and morphogenesis in the lysosome. TMEM106B is known to be a risk factor for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and has been recently identified as the receptor needed for the entry of SARS-CoV-2, independently of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). A missense mutation, p.Asp252Asn, of TMEM106B is associated with hypomyelinating leukodystrophy 16 (HLD16), which is an oligodendroglial cell-related white matter disorder causing thin myelin sheaths or myelin deficiency in the central nervous system (CNS). However, it remains to be elucidated how the mutated TMEM106B affects oligodendroglial cells. Here, we show that the TMEM106B mutant protein fails to exhibit lysosome distribution in the FBD-102b cell line, an oligodendroglial precursor cell line undergoing differentiation. In contrast, wild-type TMEM106B was indeed localized in the lysosome. Cells harboring wild-type TMEM106B differentiated into ones with widespread membranes, whereas cells harboring mutated TMEM106B failed to differentiate. It is of note that the output of signaling through the lysosome-resident mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) was greatly decreased in cells harboring mutated TMEM106B. Furthermore, treatment with hesperetin, a citrus flavonoid known as an activator of mTOR signaling, restored the molecular and cellular phenotypes induced by the TMEM106B mutant protein. These findings suggest the potential pathological mechanisms underlying HLD16 and their amelioration. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>TMEM106B protein with the HLD16-associated D252N mutation is widely distributed throughout the cytoplasmic regions. (<b>A</b>) FBD-102b cells (surrounded by white dotted lines) were transfected with the plasmid encoding wild-type (WT) TMEM106B tagged with EGFP at its C-terminus or EGFP-tagged TMEM106B with the D252N mutation. Transfected cells were stained with DAPI for nuclear staining. Scan plots were created along the white dotted lines in the direction of the arrows in the images. (<b>B</b>) Graphs showing fluorescence intensities (F.I., arbitrary units) along the white dotted lines in the direction of the arrows are presented at the bottom of the representative fluorescence images. (<b>C</b>) Cells with abnormal, widely distributed structures were counted and statistically depicted (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 10 fields).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Mutated TMEM106B is present in the lysosome. (<b>A</b>) Cells (surrounded by white dotted lines) were transfected with the plasmid encoding mutated TMEM106B (D252N). Transfected cells were stained with the respective antibodies against ER-specific KDEL, Golgi body-specific GM130, and lysosome-resident LAMP1. Scan plots were created along the white dotted lines in the direction of the arrows in the images. (<b>B</b>) Graphs showing fluorescence intensities (F.I., arbitrary units) along the white dotted lines in the direction of the arrows are presented at the bottom of the representative fluorescence images. (<b>C</b>) The respective merged percentages are depicted in bar graphs (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3 fields).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Cells harboring mutated TMEM106B show decreased cell differentiation abilities. (<b>A</b>) Cells harboring wild-type (WT) or mutated (D252N) TMEM106B were allowed to differentiate for 0 or 5 days. Cells surrounded with dotted red lines in the middle panels are magnified in the right panels. The cell surrounded by a white dotted line is a typically differentiated one with widespread membranes. (<b>B</b>) Differentiated cells are statistically depicted (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 10 fields). (<b>C</b>) The lysates of cells at 5 days following the induction of differentiation were immunoblotted with the respective antibodies against differentiation markers PLP1 and MBP, cell lineage marker Sox10, and internal control actin. (<b>D</b>) Quantification of immunoreactive bands, using control immunoreactive bands as 100%, is depicted in the respective graphs of PLP1, MBP, Sox10, and actin (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3 blots).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Cells harboring mutated TMEM106B show decreased phosphorylation levels of ribosomal S6 and translational 4E-BP1 proteins. (<b>A</b>) The lysates of cells at 5 days following the induction of differentiation were immunoblotted with the respective antibodies against phosphorylated ribosomal S6 and translational 4E-BP1 proteins (pS6 and p4E-BP1). Total ribosomal S6 and translational 4E-BP1 protein (S6 and 4E-BP1) bands are also presented. (<b>B</b>) Quantification of immunoreactive bands, using control immunoreactive bands as 100%, is depicted in the respective graphs of pS6, S6, p4E-BP1, and 4E-BP1 (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3 blots).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Hesperetin recovers phenotypes of cells harboring mutated TMEM106B. (<b>A</b>) Cells harboring mutated TMEM106B were allowed to differentiate for 0 or 5 days in the presence or absence of 10 μm hesperetin (DMSO as the vehicle). Cells surrounded with dotted red lines in the middle panels are magnified in the right panels. The cell surrounded by a white dotted line is a typically differentiated one with widespread membranes. (<b>B</b>) Differentiated cells are statistically depicted (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 10 fields). (<b>C</b>) The lysates of cells at 5 days following the induction of differentiation were immunoblotted with the respective antibodies against differentiation markers PLP1 and MBP, cell lineage marker Sox10, and internal control actin. (<b>D</b>) Quantification of immunoreactive bands, using hesperetin plus immunoreactive bands as 100%, is depicted in the respective graphs of PLP1, MBP, Sox10, and actin (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3 blots).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Hesperetin recovers decreased phosphorylation levels of ribosomal S6 and translational 4E-BP1 proteins in cells harboring mutated TMEM106B. (<b>A</b>) The lysates of cells at 5 days following the induction of differentiation in the presence or absence of hesperetin were immunoblotted with the respective antibodies against phosphorylated ribosomal S6 and translational 4E-BP1 proteins (pS6 and p4E-BP1). Total ribosomal S6 and translational 4E-BP1 protein (S6 and 4E-BP1) bands are also presented. (<b>B</b>) Quantification of immunoreactive bands, using hesperetin plus immunoreactive bands as 100%, is depicted in the respective graphs of pS6, S6, p4E-BP1, and 4E-BP1 (** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3 blots).</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 310 KiB  
Article
Serum Levels of Zinc, Albumin, Interleukin-6 and CRP in Patients with Unipolar and Bipolar Depression: Cross Sectional Study
by Tihana Bagarić, Alma Mihaljević-Peleš, Milena Skočić Hanžek, Maja Živković, Ana Kozmar and Dunja Rogić
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(5), 4533-4550; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46050275 - 9 May 2024
Viewed by 1150
Abstract
Unipolar (UD) and bipolar depression (BDD) show a high degree of similarity in clinical presentations, which complicates the differential diagnosis of these disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin (Alb), [...] Read more.
Unipolar (UD) and bipolar depression (BDD) show a high degree of similarity in clinical presentations, which complicates the differential diagnosis of these disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin (Alb), and zinc (Zn) in patients with UD, BDD, and healthy controls (HC). A total of 211 samples were collected: 131 patient samples (65 UD and 68 BDD) and 80 HC. The Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), along with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), were administered to patient groups to evaluate symptoms. A cross-sectional study was performed to analyse the serum levels of IL-6, CRP, albumin, and zinc. The concentration of CRP was determined using the immunoturbidimetry method, zinc using the colorimetric method, and albumin using the colorimetric method with bromocresol green on the Alinity c device. IL-6 cytokine concentration in serum samples was ascertained using a commercial enzyme immunoassay, ELISA. We found no significant differences in serum concentrations of zinc, albumin, CRP, and IL-6 between the groups of patients with unipolar and bipolar depression. There was a significant statistical difference (p < 0.001) between serum levels of all investigated parameters in both groups of depressed patients in comparison with HC. Furthermore, correlations with specific items on HAMD-17; (namely, hypochondrias, work and activities, somatic symptoms-general, and weight loss) and on MADRS (concentration difficulties, lassitude) were observed in both patient groups. These findings confirm the presence of low-grade inflammation in depression, thus adding better insight into the inflammation hypothesis directed to explain the aetiology of depressive disorders. Our results do not indicate potential biomarkers for distinguishing between unipolar and bipolar depression. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases)

Review

Jump to: Research

21 pages, 1746 KiB  
Review
Unlocking the Potential: Semaglutide’s Impact on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Disease in Animal Models
by Andreea Daniela Meca, Ianis Kevyn Stefan Boboc, Liliana Mititelu-Tartau and Maria Bogdan
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(6), 5929-5949; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46060354 - 13 Jun 2024
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 3556
Abstract
Semaglutide (SEM), a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has garnered increasing interest for its potential therapeutic effects in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD). This review provides a comprehensive description of SEM’s mechanism of action and its effects in [...] Read more.
Semaglutide (SEM), a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has garnered increasing interest for its potential therapeutic effects in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD). This review provides a comprehensive description of SEM’s mechanism of action and its effects in preclinical studies of these debilitating conditions. In animal models of AD, SEM has proved beneficial effects on multiple pathological hallmarks of the disease. SEM administration has been associated with reductions in amyloid-beta plaque deposition and mitigation of neuroinflammation. Moreover, SEM treatment has been shown to ameliorate behavioral deficits related to anxiety and social interaction. SEM-treated animals exhibit improvements in spatial learning and memory retention tasks, as evidenced by enhanced performance in maze navigation tests and novel object recognition assays. Similarly, in animal models of PD, SEM has demonstrated promising neuroprotective effects through various mechanisms. These include modulation of neuroinflammation, enhancement of mitochondrial function, and promotion of neurogenesis. Additionally, SEM has been shown to improve motor function and ameliorate dopaminergic neuronal loss, offering the potential for disease-modifying treatment strategies. Overall, the accumulating evidence from preclinical studies suggests that SEM holds promise as a novel therapeutic approach for AD and PD. Further research is warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of SEM’s neuroprotective effects and to translate these findings into clinical applications for the treatment of these devastating neurodegenerative disorders. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Characteristics of subcutaneous and oral formulations of SEM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The pathogenesis of AD and PD and the effects of SEM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mechanism of action of SEM and its impact on dopamine in AD and PD.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop