Next Article in Journal
The Collaborative Payer Provider Model Enhances Primary Care, Producing Triple Aim Plus One Outcomes: A Cohort Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Reducing the Shared Burden of Chronic Conditions among Persons Aging with Disability and Older Adults in the United States through Bridging Aging and Disability
Previous Article in Journal
Content Analysis of Student Essays after Attending a Problem-Based Learning Course: Facilitating the Development of Critical Thinking and Communication Skills in Japanese Nursing Students
Previous Article in Special Issue
Healthy Ageing in People with Intellectual Disabilities from Managers’ Perspective: A Qualitative Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Nature Versus Nurture: Does Proteostasis Imbalance Underlie the Genetic, Environmental, and Age-Related Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease?

Biology Department, The University of the South, Sewanee, TN 37383, USA
Healthcare 2017, 5(3), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare5030046
Submission received: 29 June 2017 / Revised: 27 July 2017 / Accepted: 17 August 2017 / Published: 22 August 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ageing with Chronic Disease and Disability)

Abstract

:
Aging is a risk factor for a number of “age-related diseases”, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). AD affects more than a third of all people over the age of 85, and is the leading cause of dementia worldwide. Symptoms include forgetfulness, memory loss, and cognitive decline, ultimately resulting in the need for full-time care. While there is no cure for AD, pharmacological approaches to alleviate symptoms and target underlying causes of the disease have been developed, albeit with limited success. This review presents the age-related, genetic, and environmental risk factors for AD and proposes a hypothesis for the mechanistic link between genetics and the environment. In short, much is known about the genetics of early-onset familial AD (EO-FAD) and the central role played by the Aβ peptide and protein misfolding, but late-onset AD (LOAD) is not thought to have direct genetic causes. Nonetheless, genetic risk factors such as isoforms of the protein ApoE have been identified. Additional findings suggest that air pollution caused by the combustion of fossil fuels may be an important environmental risk factor for AD. A hypothesis suggesting that poor air quality might act by disrupting protein folding homeostasis (proteostasis) is presented.

1. Alzheimer’s Disease and Public Health

Jean Calment of Arles, France lived to be 122 years old, making hers the longest confirmed lifespan of any human being. Her longevity can be attributed in part to an active lifestyle (despite smoking) and in part to genetics. As a testament to what is referred to as healthy aging—the Holy Grail of geriatric medicine and aging research—Calment lived on her own until the age of 110. Healthy aging involves maximizing lifespan while minimizing age-related medical conditions, and is thereby correlated with a high quality of life. It is notoriously difficult to achieve because aging in and of itself is a significant risk factor for a variety of what are aptly termed “age-related diseases” including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and a number of neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) [1].
AD is the worldwide leading cause of dementia in the elderly, affecting nearly 50 million people according to Alzheimer’s Disease International [2]. The disease was first described in the early 1900s by Alois Alzheimer, who observed proteinaceous deposits and significant neurodegeneration in the postmortem brain of a 51 year-old patient. The patient originally presented with early onset dementia and suffered rapid cognitive decline over a period of a few years before her death [3]. Studies have shown that the memory center of the brain known as the hippocampus is one of the first areas affected by AD, such that the earliest disease symptoms involve forgetfulness. As the disease progresses and more brain regions become affected, memory loss turns more severe and reasoning, behavior, and emotional stability start to decline. Most AD patients have such difficultly with activities of daily living (ADL) that they are unable to live on their own and require either home care or residence in an assisted living facility [4].
Conventional wisdom reasonably presumes that the extent of ADL impairment reflects disease-severity. However, a recent study of 1029 patients at the Baylor College of Medicine found that while ADL impairment is strongly correlated with the risk of death for AD patients, it is often independent of other known biomarkers for AD severity. The authors of that study thereby suggest that treatments leading to an ADL improvement should be pursued, in some cases over those that treat other aspects of the disease [5].
Despite more than 100 years of research on AD, there is still no cure. Current medical interventions include disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and less expensive drugs that are meant only to treat symptoms [6]. Many symptom-treating drugs result in mild cognitive benefits [7], while others target psychiatric and behavioral aspects of AD [8]. Ultimately, treatment regimens strive to maximize both the quality of life and the lifespan of patients. Determining quality of life for patients with severe dementia is a notoriously difficult task that usually involves interviewing both the patients and their caregivers [9]. In fact, caregivers with close relationships or significant interactions with AD patients may be in a better position than the patients themselves to provide feedback to doctors regarding the effects of various treatments.
Without a cure on the horizon, the number of people with AD or other age-related dementias will increase substantially over the next 20 years. This is partly because the baby boomer generation is just starting to reach retirement age. Furthermore, the medical infrastructure continues to improve, and mortality by infectious diseases is in decline. As the population ages, the next generation will be saddled with an unprecedented caregiving burden.
In addition to impacting earning potential and the ability to save for their own retirement, family members of AD patients serving as caregivers also suffer their own array of comorbidities, resulting in a declining health-related quality of life and an increasing number of emergency room visits as compared to non-caregivers [10]. Caregivers have also been shown to suffer from stress and psychiatric conditions, contributing to impaired functioning with respect to their own ADL [11].
The only way to alleviate this growing public health crisis is to find a cure, or at least better treatment options, for AD. In 2010, the only pharmaceuticals approved for the treatment of AD symptoms were cholinesterase inhibitors that increase acetylcholine levels and N-methyl-d-aspartic acid antagonists that inhibit glutamate signaling in the brain [4]. Much recent research has focused on elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying AD, which has led to new treatment regimens as described below.

2. Genetic Risk Factors

2.1. Early-Onset AD

Studies aimed at elucidating the cell biological and biochemical mechanisms that underlie AD have revealed interactions between a number of genes, processes, and even cell types. Consequently, two AD patients may present with very similar symptoms but have different genetic predispositions. This suggests that there are multiple ways to arrive at the same endpoint, and thus no single explanation for the cause of AD. This naturally adds a layer of complexity to any proposed treatment regimens. Fortunately, there seem to be a few subtypes of AD with related underlying causes.
For example, a small subset—accounting for between one and five percent of AD cases—is caused by strikingly similar gene mutations leading to very aggressive early onset of symptoms (as early as 30 years of age) [12]. Such cases are aptly referred to as early-onset familial AD (EO-FAD). Studies in the 1990s revealed that the misfolding and aggregation of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide is a defining component of EO-FAD etiology.
The Aβ peptide is an abnormal cleavage product of the amyloid precursor protein (APP), whose normal cellular function is an area of active investigation [13]. Normally, APP is sequentially cleaved by the proteases α-secretase and γ-secretase at the cell surface, yielding normal non-toxic protein fragments referred to as p3 peptides. However, certain EO-FAD-associated genetic variants of APP are internalized into vesicles containing β-secretase (BACE1) and γ-secretase that together give rise to disease-associated Aβ peptides that are longer than p3 but derived from the same precursor. The inherently aggregation-prone Aβ peptides form amyloid fibrils and extracellular plaques in a concentration-dependent manner [14,15,16].
Not all Aβ peptides are the same length. In fact, the ratio of Aβ1-40: Aβ1-42 may be an important predictor of AD. Thus, other mutations that promote the production of Aβ1-42 are also associated with EO-FAD. Specifically, mutations in presenilin 1 and presenilin 2 alter the proteolytic site of γ-secretase causing it to produce more Aβ1-42, which is highly amyloidogenic [17].
Taken together, these findings led to the Aβ peptide becoming an important area of investigation and an important drug target for the treatment of AD. Aβ accumulation is associated with neuronal apoptosis, oxidative damage, synapse loss, and even seizures [18]. Nonetheless, drugs that specifically target the production of Aβ (e.g., by altering the activities of β-secretase or γ-secretase) have been strikingly ineffective as AD treatments. Even when drugs have succeeded at partially reducing Aβ levels in the brain, they did little to mitigate the cognitive effects of AD [19]. The next generation of pharmaceuticals includes immunotherapies that aim to enhance the clearance of the Aβ peptide. While such treatments have experienced early successes in clinical trials insofar as triggering a marked increase in anti-Aβ IgG levels, little concomitant cognitive improvement has been observed [20].

2.2. Late-Onset AD

Late-onset forms of AD (LOAD) are much more common than EO-FAD, accounting for approximately 95% of all instances of AD. Symptoms appear after the age of 65, with progressive deterioration of brain function, and death within and average of 10 years. LOAD is considered to be sporadic because it has no known genetic causes. However, recent efforts to understand the disease have uncovered a number of genetic risk factors.
The strongest and most consistent risk factor for LOAD is the presence of the ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein gene (APOE) such that carriers of the ε4 allele are at a nearly 12-fold increased risk of the disease compared to the general population [21]. There are three common APOE alleles in people, referred to as ε2, ε3, and ε4, which differ at two amino acid positions. The most common is the ε3 allele, which can thus be considered the reference allele. Carriers of the ε2 allele are at a reduced risk of LOAD, relative to those who are homozygous for the ε3 allele [22].
The normal function of the 299-amino-acid, 34kD, ApoE protein is to regulate the transport of lipids between cell types. In the brain, ApoE is produced by astrocytes and acts as a transporter of cholesterol to neurons by binding to ApoE receptors [23]. Recent findings suggest that the various APOE alleles may have both Aβ-dependent and Aβ-independent mechanisms by which they contribute to LOAD.

2.3. Aβ-Dependent Pathways for ApoE

Much evidence points to ApoE modulating the levels of Aβ in the brain. In fact, even some asymptomatic homozygous carriers of the APOE ε4 allele have been shown to accumulate more Aβ fibrils than individuals with other genotypes [24,25]. Furthermore, ApoE was first identified based on its ability to physically interact with Aβ. Mechanistically, it seems that the ApoE protein is able to trigger the degradation of Aβ in mouse models of AD in a manner dependent on its isoform and lipidation state [26].
If ApoE acts through Aβ to increase the risk of AD in an allele-dependent manner, then should an additive effect not be observed in patients carrying EO-FAD mutations? Consistent with this, a recent study of patients with mutations in presenilin 1 revealed that the age of onset of disease symptoms was delayed in patients carrying the protective APOE ε2 allele [27]. At face value, these findings are consistent with the “amyloid cascade hypothesis” that posits that all forms of AD are caused by the toxic effects of insoluble Aβ deposits in the brain. However, recent findings point to ApoE contributing to AD in other ways as well.

2.4. Aβ-Independent Pathways for ApoE

Synapses are inherently unstable, with relatively short half-lives in healthy adult brains. This turnover is needed to maintain the plasticity of neuronal connections, which is especially important for learning and memory–functions of the brain that are disrupted in AD patients. Astrocytes are phagocytic cells that play a major role in mediating synapse turnover [28]. Moreover, astrocytes secrete ApoE [29]. Recent evidence suggests that the APOE ε4 allele impairs the ability of astrocytes to prune neurons [28]. Furthermore, mice expressing the human APOE ε4 allele are reported to have a significantly higher number of senescent synapses than APOE ε3 mice [28]. Importantly, while astrocytes have been shown to phagocytose the Aβ peptide [30], synapse pruning does not directly involve Aβ.
Another possible Aβ-independent role for APOE ε4 involves phospholipid metabolism. Dysregulation of lipid metabolism is known to correlate with AD [31,32]. However, the mechanism was not understood until recently, nor was it clear that it was a cause of disease rather than an epiphenomenon. A recent report demonstrated that certain phosphoinositols accumulate to abnormally high levels due to the upregulation of phospholipid degrading enzymes in mice expressing the human APOE ε4 allele [33]. As evidence that this upregulation is causally linked to disease, the authors showed that downregulating this enzyme rescued the APOE ε4-associated cognitive defects in mice [33].
Since LOAD can manifest in both Aβ-dependent and Aβ-independent manners, it should not be surprising that treatments that exclusively target Aβ levels have not always been effective [34]. Instead, effective treatments will likely depend on patients’ individual brain chemistries.

3. Environmental Risk Factors

At least half of all AD patients do not have the previously identified disease-associated mutations in APP, presenilin 1, presenilin 2, or ApoE. Therefore, there must be additional explanations for what causes AD and what can be considered a risk factor. Could the environment be a risk factor? Do certain environmental conditions exacerbate the contribution of genotype to AD risk? The last few years have witnessed a rise in the number of studies that link air pollution to AD and related dementias. With the President of the United States recently announcing his intention to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord, the question of air quality as a risk factor for AD is especially timely.
An epidemiological study was performed on people of European descent living in urban areas in the continental United States. Subjects were 65–75 years old and had no signs of dementia at the time the study began. Cognitive impairment along with the extent of exposure to small particulate matter 2.5 μm or less in diameter (PM2.5)—produced by burning fossil fuels—was documented over time. Women living in areas with high PM2.5 in the air were shown to be at an increased risk for dementia. This risk was significantly higher in those individuals carrying two copies of the APOE ε4 allele [35]. A similar study of people living near major roads in Canada pointed to poor air quality being a risk factor for certain types of age-related dementia. Interestingly, PM2.5 did not seem to be a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease (PD), meaning that it is not a general risk factor for all types of neurodegenerative disorders [36]. Instead, PM2.5 may trigger cognitive decline by acting on specific proteins, such as Aβ.
While Aβ aggregation was not directly monitored in either of the epidemiological studies described above, further studies with AD mice showed that PM2.5 exposure triggers Aβ aggregation in a manner dependent on the APOE genotype [35]. Together, these data point to a disease mechanism by which APOE ε4 and poor air quality work together to cause AD in an Aβ-dependent manner.
Another recent mouse study involved exposure to a combination of PM2.5 and SO2 [37], which are known to co-exist as products of fossil fuel combustion [38]. The authors reported an increase in tau hyperphosphorylation leading to the accumulation of neurofibrillary tangles—phenomena associated with several neurodegenerative diseases, including AD and frontotemporal dementia. As such, the mechanism by which air pollution acts as a risk factor for AD may be multifaceted and may differ depending on the molecular components contaminating the air.
The above evidence linking air quality to AD is tantalizing; however, the mechanism(s) underlying the phenomenon is unknown. Furthermore, while the majority of recent findings are centered on AD, insufficient data exist to ascertain the extent to which other neurodegenerative diseases may likewise be exacerbated by PM2.5 in the air.
With respect to the mechanism of action, it seems likely that small particulate matter produced by the combustion of fossil fuels may be an important source of proteotoxic stress that contributes to an imbalance in protein folding homeostasis (proteostasis). This hypothesis is based on the understanding that AD is a protein folding disorder with Aβ peptide misfolding at its core [39]. Nonetheless, PM2.5 has never been tested for its propensity to trigger protein misfolding, either generally or of Aβ in particular, and will be an important new area of investigation.

4. Conclusions

AD is the worldwide leading cause of dementia and a major age-related disease. As memory loss and cognitive decline are hallmarks of AD, persons living with the disease experience significant ADL impairment, resulting in the need for full-time care. Thus, AD impacts both aging patients and caregivers. Since the early 1990s, a major aim in AD research has been to identify genetic causes or genetic risk factors, with the hope that such knowledge would pave the way for the development of pharmaceuticals that target the underlying mechanism(s) of disease. Over the last 25 years, much progress was made toward understanding the genetics. Namely, three genes in which mutations cause EO-AD have been described, leading to the Aβ peptide being launched to the position of highest priority with respect to possible disease mechanisms. Additionally, the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic LOAD is now thought to be APOE ε4. While the APOE genotype is certainly not predictive of the disease, the mechanism by which it increases the risk of disease is an area of active investigation. Recent data suggest that particulate matter generated by the burning of fossil fuels interacts with the APOE genotype by exacerbating its known Aβ-dependent functions, leading to an increase in Aβ-aggregation and consequently to an increase in neurodegeneration. This may be caused by an imbalance in proteostasis and protein quality control.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Fridien Tchoukoua of my laboratory for encouraging me to start thinking about air quality as a risk factor for neurodegenerative disease. This work was supported by a Kennedy Endowed Faculty Fellowship and a University of the South Faculty Development Grant.

Author Contributions

E.A.K. had the original idea for the project, did the research and analysis, developed the main ideas, wrote the article, and was involved at all stages of the peer review and editorial process.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jeune, B. Living longer-but better? Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2002, 14, 72–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Prince, M.; Comas-Herrera, A.; Knapp, M.; Guerchet, M.; Karagiannidou, M. World Alzheimer’s Report: Improving Healthcare for People Living with Dementia; Alzheimer’s Disease International: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hippius, H.; Gabriele, N. The discovery of Alzheimer’s disease. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2003, 5, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Aderinwale, O.G.; Ernst, H.W.; Mousa, S.A. Current therapies and new strategies for the management of Alzheimer’s disease. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Dement. 2010, 25, 414–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Liang, F.W.; Chan, W.; Chen, J.P.; Zimmerman, C.; Waring, S.; Doody, R. Cognitively-Related Basic Activities of Daily Living Impairment Greatly Increases the Risk of Death in Alzheimers Disease. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Melnikova, I. Therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 2007, 6, 341–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kumar, A.; Singh, A. A review on Alzheimer’s disease pathophysiology and its management: An update. Pharmacol. Rep. 2015, 67, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ballard, C.; Waite, J. The effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of aggression and psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006, CD003476. [Google Scholar]
  9. Andrieu, S.; Coley, N.; Rolland, Y.; Cantet, C.; Arnaud, C.; Guyonnet, S.; Nourhashemi, F.; Grant, A.; Vellas, B. Assessing Alzheimer’s disease patients’ quality of life: Discrepancies between patient and caregiver perspectives. Alzheimers Dement. 2016, 12, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Goren, A.; Montgomery, W.; Wahle-Wrobleski, K.; Nakamura, T.; Ueda, K. Impact of caring for persons with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia on caregivers’ health outcomes: Findings from a community based survey in Japan. BMC Geriatr. 2016, 16, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Svendsboe, E.; Terum, T.; Testad, I.; Aarsland, D.; Ulstein, I.; Corbett, A.; Rongve, A. Caregiver burden in family carers of people with dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s disease. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2016, 31, 1075–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Reitz, C.; Mayeux, R. Alzheimer disease: Epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, risk factors and biomarkers. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2014, 88, 640–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Konietzko, U.; Goodger, Z.V.; Meyer, M.; Kohli, B.M.; Bosset, J.; Lahiri, D.K.; Nitsch, R.M. Co-localization of the amyloid precursor protein and Notch intracellular domains in nuclear transcription factories. Neurobiol. Aging 2010, 31, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Goate, A.; Chartier-Harlin, M.C.; Mullan, M.; Brown, J.; Crawford, F.; Fidani, L.; Giuffra, L.; Haynes, A.; Irving, N.; James, L.; et al. Segregation of a missense mutation in the amyloid precursor protein gene with familial Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 1991, 349, 704–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kikis, E.A. The struggle by Caenorhabditis elegans to maintain proteostasis during aging and disease. Biol. Direct. 2016, 11, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Citron, M.; Oltersdorf, T.; Haass, C.; McConlogue, L.; Hung, A.Y.; Seubert, P.; Vigo-Pelfrey, C.; Lieberburg, I.; Selkoe, D.J. Mutation of the beta-amyloid precursor protein in familial Alzheimer’s disease increases beta-protein production. Nature 1992, 360, 672–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jarrett, J.T.; Berger, E.P.; Lansbury, P.T., Jr. The carboxy terminus of the beta amyloid protein is critical for the seeding of amyloid formation: Implications for the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Biochemistry 1993, 32, 4693–4697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Canter, R.G.; Penney, J.; Tsai, L.H. The road to restoring neural circuits for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2016, 539, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Doody, R.S.; Raman, R.; Farlow, M.; Iwatsubo, T.; Vellas, B.; Joffe, S.; Kieburtz, K.; He, F.; Sun, X.; Thomas, R.G.; et al. A phase 3 trial of semagacestat for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Farlow, M.R.; Andreasen, N.; Riviere, M.E.; Vostiar, I.; Vitalitit, A.; Sovago, J.; Caputo, A.; Winblad, B.; Graf, A. Long-term treatment with active Abeta immunotherapy with CAD106 in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2015, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Liu, C.C.; Kanekiyo, T.; Xu, H.; Bu, G. Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer disease: Risk, mechanisms and therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2013, 9, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Corder, E.H.; Saunders, A.M.; Risch, N.J.; Strittmatter, W.J.; Schmechel, D.E.; Gaskell, P.C., Jr.; Rimmler, J.B.; Locke, P.A.; Conneally, P.M.; Schmader, K.E.; et al. Protective effect of apolipoprotein E type 2 allele for late onset Alzheimer disease. Nat. Genet. 1994, 7, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bu, G. Apolipoprotein E and its receptors in Alzheimer’s disease: Pathways, pathogenesis and therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2009, 10, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mayeyx, R.; Stern, Y.; Ottman, R.; Tatemichi, T.K.; Tang, M.X.; Maestre, G.; Ngai, C.; Tucko, B.; Ginsberg, H. The apolipoprotein epsilon 4 allele in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann. Neurol. 1993, 34, 752–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Reiman, E.M.; Chen, K.; Liu, X.; Bandy, D.; Yu, M.; Lee, W.; Ayutyanont, N.; Keppler, J.; Reeder, S.A.; Langbaum, J.B.; et al. Fibrillar amyloid-beta burden in cognitively normal people at 3 levels of genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2009, 106, 6820–6825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jiang, Q.; Lee, C.Y.; Mandrekar, S.; Wilkinson, B.; Cramer, P.; Zelcer, N.; Mann, K.; Lamb, B.; Wilson, T.M.; Collins, J.L.; et al. ApoE promotes the proteolytic degradation of Abeta. Neuron. 2008, 58, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Velez, J.I.; Lopera, F.; Sepulveda-Falla, D.; Patel, H.R.; Johar, A.S.; Chuah, A.; Tobon, C.; Rivera, D.; Villegas, A.; Cai, Y.; et al. APOE*E2 allele delays age of onset in PSEN1 E280A Alzheimer’s disease. Mol. Psychiatry 2016, 21, 916–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chung, W.S.; Verghese, P.B.; Chakraborty, C.; Joung, J.; Hyman, B.T.; Ulrich, J.D.; Holtzman, D.M.; Barres, B.A. Novel allele-dependent role for APOE in controlling the rate of synapse pruning by astrocytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 10186–10191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mouchel, Y.; Lefrancois, T.; Fages, C.; Tardy, M. Apolipoprotein E gene expression in astrocytes: Developmental pattern and regulation. Neuroreport 1995, 7, 205–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Simonovitch, S.; Schmukler, E.; Bespalko, A.; Iram, T.; Frenkel, D.; Holtzman, D.M.; Masliah, E.; Mechaelson, D.M.; Pinkas-Kramarski, R. Impaired Autophagy in APOE4 Astrocytes. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2016, 51, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kanfer, J.N.; Pettegrew, J.W.; Moossy, J.; McCartney, D.G. Alterations of selected enzymes of phospholipid metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease brain tissue as compared to non-Alzheimer’s demented controls. Neurochem. Res. 1993, 18, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Pettegrew, J.W.; Panchalingam, K.; Hamilton, R.L.; McClure, R.J. Brain membrane phospholipid alterations in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurochem. Res. 2001, 26, 771–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhu, L.; Zhong, M.; Elder, G.A.; Sano, M.; Holtzman, D.M.; Gandy, S.; Cardozo, C.; Haroutunian, V.; Robakis, N.K.; Cai, D. Phospholipid dysregulation contributes to ApoE4-associated cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 11965–11970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cummings, J.L.; Morstorf, T.; Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug-development pipeline: Few candidates, frequent failures. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2014, 6, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cacciottolo, M.; Wang, X.; Driscoll, I.; Woodward, N.; Saffari, A.; Reyes, J.; Serre, M.L.; Visuete, W.; Sioutas, C.; Morgan, T.E.; et al. Particulate air pollutants, APOE alleles and their contributions to cognitive impairment in older women and to amyloidogenesis in experimental models. Transl. Psychiatry 2017, 7, e1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chen, H.; Kwong, J.C.; Copes, R.; Tu, K.; Villeneuve, P.J.; van Donkelaar, A.; Hystad, P.; Martin, R.V.; Murray, B.J.; Jessiman, B.; et al. Living near major roads and the incidence of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis: A population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017, 389, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ku, T.T.; Chen, M.J.; Li, B.; Yun, Y.; Li, G.K.; Sang, N. Synergistic effects of particulate matter (PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) on neurodegeneration via the microRNA-mediated regulation of tau phosphorylation. Toxicol. Res. 2017, 6, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, Y.; Ying, Q.; Hu, J.; Zhang, H. Spatial and temporal variations of six criteria air pollutants in 31 provincial capital cities in China during 2013–2014. Environ. Int. 2014, 73, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Selkoe, D.J. Cell biology of protein misfolding: The examples of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004, 6, 1054–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kikis, E.A. Nature Versus Nurture: Does Proteostasis Imbalance Underlie the Genetic, Environmental, and Age-Related Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease? Healthcare 2017, 5, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare5030046

AMA Style

Kikis EA. Nature Versus Nurture: Does Proteostasis Imbalance Underlie the Genetic, Environmental, and Age-Related Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease? Healthcare. 2017; 5(3):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare5030046

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kikis, Elise A. 2017. "Nature Versus Nurture: Does Proteostasis Imbalance Underlie the Genetic, Environmental, and Age-Related Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease?" Healthcare 5, no. 3: 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare5030046

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop