SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Rising Stars: Astrocytes as a Therapeutic Target for ALS Disease.

Front Neurosci · 2020-07-28

DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00824PMID: 32848579

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

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a multifactorial disease, characterized by a progressive loss of motor neurons that eventually leads to paralysis and death. The current ALS-approved drugs modestly change the clinical course of the disease. The mechanism by which motor neurons progressively degenerate remains unclear but entails a non-cell autonomous process. Astrocytes impaired biological functionality were implicated in multiple neurodegenerative diseases, including ALS, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and Alzheimer disease (AD). In ALS disease patients, A1 reactive astrocytes were found to play a key role in the pathology of ALS disease and death of motor neurons, via loss or gain of function or acquired toxicity. The contribution of astrocytes to the maintenance of motor neurons by diverse mechanisms makes them a promising therapeutic candidate for the treatment of ALS. Therapeutic approaches targeting at modulating the function of endogenous astrocytes or replacing lost functionality by transplantation of healthy astrocytes, may contribute to the development of therapies which might slow down or even halt the progression ALS diseases. The proposed mechanisms by which astrocytes can potentially ameliorate ALS progression and the status of ALS clinical studies involving astrocytes are discussed.

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.