SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

From prion diseases to prion-like propagation mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases.

Int J Cell Biol · 2013-10-10

DOI: 10.1155/2013/975832PMID: 24222767

Open accessresearch-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Prion diseases are fatal neurodegenerative sporadic, inherited, or acquired disorders. In humans, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is the most studied prion disease. In animals, the most frequent prion diseases are scrapie in sheep and goat, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, and the emerging chronic wasting disease in wild and captive deer in North America. The hallmark of prion diseases is the deposition in the brain of PrP(Sc), an abnormal β -sheet-rich form of the cellular prion protein (PrP(C)) (Prusiner 1982). According to the prion hypothesis, PrP(Sc) can trigger the autocatalytic conversion of PrP(C) into PrP(Sc), presumably in the presence of cofactors (lipids and small RNAs) that have been recently identified. In this review, we will come back to the original works that led to the discovery of prions and to the protein-only hypothesis proposed by Dr. Prusiner. We will then describe the recent reports on mammalian synthetic prions and recombinant prions that strongly support the protein-only hypothesis. The new concept of "deformed templating" regarding a new mechanism of PrP(Sc) formation and replication will be exposed. The review will end with a chapter on the prion-like propagation of other neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and tauopathies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.