SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Equine pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction: a spontaneous model of synucleinopathy.

Sci Rep · 2021-08-06

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95396-7PMID: 34362943

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

Research overview

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

Equine pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction (PPID) is a common endocrine disease of aged horses that shows a similar pathophysiology as Parkinson's Disease (PD) with increased levels of α-synuclein (α-syn). While α-syn is thought to play a pathogenic role in horses with PPID, it is unclear if α-syn is also misfolded in the pars intermedia and could similarly promote self-aggregation and propagation. Consequently, α-syn was isolated from the pars intermedia from groups of healthy young and aged horses, and aged PPID-afflicted horses. Seeding experiments confirmed the prion-like properties of α-syn isolated from PPID-afflicted horses. Next, detection of α-syn fibrils in pars intermedia via transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was exclusive to PPID-afflicted horses. A bank of fragment peptides was designed to further characterize equine α-syn misfolding. Region 62-87 of equine and human α-syn peptides was found to be most prone to aggregation according to Tango bioinformatic program and kinetics of aggregation via a thioflavin T fluorescence assay. In both species, fragment peptide 62-87 is capable of generating mature fibrils as demonstrated by TEM. The combined animal, bioinformatic, and biophysical studies provide evidence that equine α-syn is misfolded in PPID horses.

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.