SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Keap1-Nrf2 Signaling Pathway-Mediated Antioxidant Defense in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Mechanisms and Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapeutic Strategies.

Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) · 2026-04-01

DOI: 10.31083/fbl45233PMID: 42052844

Check source for accessReview; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) are incurable, progressively disabling disorders marked by sustained neuronal degeneration and loss. Their molecular basis involves intricate regulatory networks, while current therapeutic strategies remain inadequate. Oxidative stress (OS) constitutes a major driver in the initiation and progression of age-related pathologies. Kelch-like enoyl-CoA hydratase-associated protein-1 (Keap1)-Nuclear factor Erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) signaling pathway, an essential antioxidant system, exerts protective effects by limiting OS-mediated cellular injury. Extensive evidence demonstrates a close association between Nrf2 signaling and the pathological processes of NDs, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Traditional Chinese medicine, characterized by multi-target and multi-pathway regulatory actions of its bioactive constituents, offers distinctive therapeutic potential for NDs. This review provides an integrated analysis of current advances of Nrf2 involvement in NDs and evaluates therapeutic strategies based on traditional Chinese medicine and its active components, with the aim of guiding future clinical translation.

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.