SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The antioxidant role of aromatic plant extracts in managing neurodegenerative diseases: A comprehensive review.

Brain Res Bull · 2025-02-10

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2025.111253PMID: 39938752

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) are a class of cognitive and motor disorders including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), and others. They are caused by lesions in cells and tissues of the central nervous system, resulting in corresponding dysfunctions and consequent decline in cognitive and motor functions. Neural tissues are extremely vulnerable to oxidative stress, which plays critical biological roles in NDDs. Aromatic compounds are found extensively in natural plants and have substantial effects of anti-oxidative stress damage, which not only have a wide range of research applications in cosmetics, foods, etc., but are also frequently utilized in the treatment of various central nervous system diseases. This review summarizes the relevant oxidative stress mechanisms in NDDs (AD, PD, HD, and ALS) and reviews aromatic compounds such as polyphenols, terpenoids, and flavonoids that can be used in the management of neurodegenerative diseases, as well as their specific mechanisms of antioxidant action. This review will serve as a reference for future experimental studies on neurodegenerative illnesses while also offering fresh insights into clinical therapy.

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.