SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Current Evidence on the Involvement of RAGE-Diaph1 Signaling in the Pathology and Treatment of Neurodegenerative Diseases – an Overview

· 2025-07-25

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.2033.v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neurodegenerative diseases are a group of disorders characterized by the progressive deterioration of structure and function of central nervous system neurons and include, among others, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s (PD), Alzheimer’s (AD) and Huntington’s (HD) diseases. And while all these diseases seem to have different genetic and environmental components, growing evidence shows that they share common underlying pathological features such as increased neuroinflammation and excessive oxidative stress. RAGE, the receptor for advanced glycation end-products, is a signal transduction receptor, and its activation triggers an increase in proinflammatory molecules, oxidative stressors and cytokines. Diaph1, protein diaphanous homolog 1 is an actin modulator and an intracellular ligand of RAGE. Studies demonstrated that RAGE and Diaph1 act together and their downstream signaling pathways play a role in neurodegeneration. Here, based on current evidence and our own research, we provide an overview of the RAGE-Diaph1 signaling and discuss the therapeutic potential of targeted therapy aimed at RAGE-Diaph1 signaling inhibition in prevention and treatment of 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.