SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Protein glycoxidation in neuropsychiatric disorders-from basic research to clinical practice.

Redox Biol · 2026-04-27

DOI: 10.1016/j.redox.2026.104190PMID: 42114333

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

This review integrates current findings on protein glycation, glycoxidation, and carbonyl stress in selected neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders, with a particular focus on mechanistic pathways relevant to Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), schizophrenia, and depression, as well as on their potential clinical relevance, including biomarker development and antiglycation interventions. These processes are increasingly recognised as cross-cutting features in various neuropsychiatric conditions. Despite this mechanistic relevance, no neuropsychiatric drugs have been convincingly demonstrated to exert direct antiglycation activity in vivo. The majority of published findings concern indirect modulation of carbonyl stress, redox imbalance, and advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and their receptor (RAGE) signalling rather than direct inhibition of glycation. AGEs, particularly the lysine-derived adducts Nε-(carboxyethyl)lysine (CEL) and Nε-(carboxymethyl)lysine (CML), show potential as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in neurodegenerative diseases, although further clinical validation is required. Modulation of protein glycation, carbonyl stress, and AGE-RAGE signalling has emerged as a common mechanistic denominator in various therapeutic strategies explored in neuropsychiatric disorders.

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.