SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Bright and Dark Sides of Nitric Oxide in Neurodegenerative Diseases.

J Pers Med · 2026-05-01

DOI: 10.3390/jpm16050246PMID: 42188341

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

Nitric oxide (NO) plays an important role in neuronal communication, synaptic plasticity and vascular regulation. Due to its important function in neuronal homeostasis, NO imbalance is associated with neurodegeneration. Specifically, in Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson's disease (PD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), an excessive amount of NO, mostly produced by inducible NO synthase (iNOS), reacts with superoxide to form peroxynitrite, driving oxidative/nitrosative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and aberrant protein modifications. In AD, NO dysregulation promotes amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation, tau hyperphosphorylation and synaptic loss, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of neuronal damage. NO's dual role, protective at physiological levels but harmful if overproduced, underscores the therapeutic potential of antioxidant compounds that restore the balance of NO/NOS (especially iNOS) while preserving physiological functions. However, despite the emerging role of antioxidant-based therapeutic approaches, clinical translation is limited by the complexity of NO signaling and the absence of safe, specific NOS inhibitors. By targeting the molecular switch from protective to toxic, NO activity may offer new personalized treatment avenues for neurodegenerative diseases.

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.