SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

PERK Pathway and Neurodegenerative Disease: To Inhibit or to Activate?

Biomolecules · 2021-02-26

DOI: 10.3390/biom11030354PMID: 33652720

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

With the extension of life span in recent decades, there is an increasing burden of late-onset neurodegenerative diseases, for which effective treatments are lacking. Neurodegenerative diseases include the widespread Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD), the less frequent Huntington's disease (HD) and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and also rare early-onset diseases linked to mutations that cause protein aggregation or loss of function in genes that maintain protein homeostasis. The difficulties in applying gene therapy approaches to tackle these diseases is drawing increasing attention to strategies that aim to inhibit cellular toxicity and restore homeostasis by intervening in cellular pathways. These include the unfolded protein response (UPR), activated in response to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, a cellular affliction that is shared by these diseases. Special focus is turned to the PKR-like ER kinase (PERK) pathway of the UPR as a target for intervention. However, the complexity of the pathway and its ability to promote cell survival or death, depending on ER stress resolution, has led to some confusion in conflicting studies. Both inhibition and activation of the PERK pathway have been reported to be beneficial in disease models, although there are also some reports where they are counterproductive. Although with the current knowledge a definitive answer cannot be given on whether it is better to activate or to inhibit the pathway, the most encouraging strategies appear to rely on boosting some steps without compromising downstream recovery.

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.