SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Interrelation between Reactive Oxygen Species and Autophagy in Neurological Disorders.

Oxid Med Cell Longev · 2017-12-17

DOI: 10.1155/2017/8495160PMID: 29391926

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neurological function deficits due to cerebral ischemia or neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) have long been considered a thorny issue in clinical treatment. Recovery after neurologic impairment is fairly limited, which poses a major threat to health and quality of life. Accumulating evidences support that ROS and autophagy are both implicated in the onset and development of neurological disorders. Notably, oxidative stress triggered by excess of ROS not only puts the brain in a vulnerable state but also enhances the virulence of other pathogenic factors, just like mitochondrial dysfunction, which is described as the culprit of nerve cell damage. Nevertheless, autophagy is proposed as a subtle cellular defense mode against destructive stimulus by timely removal of damaged and cytotoxic substance. Emerging evidence suggests that the interplay of ROS and autophagy may establish a determinant role in the modulation of neuronal homeostasis. However, the underlying regulatory mechanisms are still largely unexplored. This review sets out to afford an overview of the crosstalk between ROS and autophagy and discusses relevant molecular mechanisms in cerebral ischemia, AD, and PD, so as to provide new insights into promising therapeutic targets for the abovementioned neurological conditions.

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.