SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

An Overview of Crucial Dietary Substances and Their Modes of Action for Prevention of Neurodegenerative Diseases.

Cells · 2020-02-28

DOI: 10.3390/cells9030576PMID: 32121302

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; review-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neurodegenerative diseases, namely Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington's disease, and multiple sclerosis are becoming one of the main health concerns due to the increasing aging of the world's population. These diseases often share the same biological mechanisms, including neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and/or protein fibrillation. Recently, there have been many studies published pointing out the possibilities to reduce and postpone the clinical manifestation of these deadly diseases through lifelong consumption of some crucial dietary substances, among which phytochemicals (e.g., polyphenols) and endogenous substances (e.g., acetyl-L-carnitine, coenzyme Q10, n-3 poysaturated fatty acids) showed the most promising results. Another important issue that has been pointed out recently is the availability of these substances to the central nervous system, where they have to be present in high enough concentrations in order to exhibit their neuroprotective properties. As so, such the aim of this review is to summarize the recent findings regarding neuroprotective substances, their mechanisms of action, as well as to point out therapeutic considerations, including their bioavailability and safety for humans.

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.