SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Extracellular Vesicles as Nanotherapeutics for Parkinson's Disease.

Biomolecules · 2020-09-16

DOI: 10.3390/biom10091327PMID: 32948090

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

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are naturally occurring membranous structures secreted by normal and diseased cells, and carrying a wide range of bioactive molecules. In the central nervous system (CNS), EVs are important in both homeostasis and pathology. Through receptor-ligand interactions, direct fusion, or endocytosis, EVs interact with their target cells. Accumulating evidence indicates that EVs play crucial roles in the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative disorders (NDs), including Parkinson's disease (PD). PD is the second most common ND, characterized by the progressive loss of dopaminergic (DAergic) neurons within the Substantia Nigra pars compacta (SNpc). In PD, EVs are secreted by both neurons and glial cells, with either beneficial or detrimental effects, via a complex program of cell-to-cell communication. The functions of EVs in PD range from their etiopathogenetic relevance to their use as diagnostic tools and innovative carriers of therapeutics. Because they can cross the blood-brain barrier, EVs can be engineered to deliver bioactive molecules (e.g., small interfering RNAs, catalase) within the CNS. This review summarizes the latest findings regarding the role played by EVs in PD etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy, with a particular focus on their use as novel PD nanotherapeutics.

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.