SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Modulating Stress Proteins in Response to Therapeutic Interventions for Parkinson's Disease.

Int J Mol Sci · 2023-11-12

DOI: 10.3390/ijms242216233PMID: 38003423

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

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative illness characterized by the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra, resulting in motor symptoms and without debilitating motors. A hallmark of this condition is the accumulation of misfolded proteins, a phenomenon that drives disease progression. In this regard, heat shock proteins (HSPs) play a central role in the cellular response to stress, shielding cells from damage induced by protein aggregates and oxidative stress. As a result, researchers have become increasingly interested in modulating these proteins through pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic interventions. This review aims to provide an overview of the preclinical experiments performed over the last decade in this research field. Specifically, it focuses on preclinical studies that center on the modulation of stress proteins for the treatment potential of PD. The findings display promise in targeting HSPs to ameliorate PD outcomes. Despite the complexity of HSPs and their co-chaperones, proteins such as HSP70, HSP27, HSP90, and glucose-regulated protein-78 (GRP78) may be efficacious in slowing or preventing disease progression. Nevertheless, clinical validation is essential to confirm the safety and effectiveness of these preclinical approaches.

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.