Tracking protein aggregate interactions

The applications of nanozymes in neurological diseases: From mechanism to design

Nanozymes are a class of nanomaterials with enzyme-like catalytic activities. Due to their multiple catalytic activities, as well as their good stability, modifiable activity and other advantages over natural enzymes, they have a wide range of application prospects in sterilization, the treatment of inflammation, cancer, and neurological diseases, and other fields. In recent years, it has been found that various nanozymes have antioxidant activity, allowing them to simulate the endogenous antioxidant system and play an important role in cell protection. Therefore, nanozymes can be applied in the treatment of reactive oxygen species (ROS)-related neurological diseases. Another advantage of nanozymes is that they can be customized and modified in a variety of ways to increase their catalytic activity beyond that of classical enzymes. In addition, some nanozymes have unique properties, such as the ability to effectively penetrate the blood‒brain barrier (BBB) or to depolymerize or otherwise eliminate misfolded proteins, making them potentially useful therapeutic tools for the treatment of neurological diseases. Here, we review the catalytic mechanisms of antioxidant-like nanozymes, as well as the latest research progress and strategies for designing therapeutic nanozymes, aiming to promote the development of more effective nanozymes for the treatment of neurological diseases in the future.

Molecular Factors Mediating Neural Cell Plasticity Changes in Dementia Brain Diseases

Neural plasticity-the ability to alter a neuronal response to environmental stimuli-is an important factor in learning and memory. Short-term synaptic plasticity and long-term synaptic plasticity, including long-term potentiation and long-term depression, are the most-characterized models of learning and memory at the molecular and cellular level. These processes are often disrupted by neurodegeneration-induced dementias. Alzheimer's disease (AD) accounts for 50% of cases of dementia. Vascular dementia (VaD), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) constitute much of the remaining cases. While vascular lesions are the principal cause of VaD, neurodegenerative processes have been established as etiological agents of many dementia diseases. Chief among such processes is the deposition of pathological protein aggregates in vivo including β-amyloid deposition in AD, the formation of neurofibrillary tangles in AD and FTD, and the accumulation of Lewy bodies composed of α-synuclein aggregates in DLB and PDD. The main symptoms of dementia are cognitive decline and memory and learning impairment. Nonetheless, accurate diagnoses of neurodegenerative diseases can be difficult due to overlapping clinical symptoms and the diverse locations of cortical lesions. Still, new neuroimaging and molecular biomarkers have improved clinicians' diagnostic capabilities in the context of dementia and may lead to the development of more effective treatments. Both genetic and environmental factors may lead to the aggregation of pathological proteins and altered levels of cytokines, such that can trigger the formation of proinflammatory immunological phenotypes. This cascade of pathological changes provides fertile ground for the development of neural plasticity disorders and dementias. Available pharmacotherapy and disease-modifying therapies currently in clinical trials may modulate synaptic plasticity to mitigate the effects neuropathological changes have on cognitive function, memory, and learning. In this article, we review the neural plasticity changes seen in common neurodegenerative diseases from pathophysiological and clinical points of view and highlight potential molecular targets of disease-modifying therapies.

Foundations for a Realism-Based Ontology of Protein Aggregates

The objective of this paper is to propose formal definitions for the terms 'protein aggregate' and 'protein-containing complex' such that the descriptions and usages of these terms in biomedical literature are unified and that those portions of reality are correctly represented. To this end, we surveyed the literature to assess the need for a distinction between these entities, then compared the features of usages and definitions found in the literature to the definitions for those terms found in Bioportal ontologies. Based on the results of this comparison, we propose updated definitions for the terms 'protein aggregate' and 'protein-containing complex'. Thus far, we propose the following distinguishing factors: first, that one important difference lies in whether an entity is disposed to change type in response to certain structural alterations, such as dissociation of a continuant part, and second that an important difference lies in the ability of the entity to realize its function after such an event occurs. These distinctions are reflected in the proposed definitions.

Effect of charged residues in the N-domain of Sup35 protein on prion [PSI+] stability and propagation

Recent studies have shown that Sup35p prion fibrils probably have a parallel in-register β-structure. However, the part(s) of the N-domain critical for fibril formation and maintenance of the [PSI(+)] phenotype remains unclear. Here we designed a set of five SUP35 mutant alleles (sup35(KK)) with lysine substitutions in each of five N-domain repeats, and investigated their effect on infectivity and ability of corresponding proteins to aggregate and coaggregate with wild type Sup35p in the [PSI(+)] strain. Alleles sup35-M1 (Y46K/Q47K) and sup35-M2 (Q61K/Q62K) led to prion loss, whereas sup35-M3 (Q70K/Q71K), sup35-M4 (Q80K/Q81K), and sup35-M5 (Q89K/Q90K) were able to maintain the [PSI(+)] prion. This suggests that the critical part of the parallel in-register β-structure for the studied [PSI(+)] prion variant lies in the first 63-69 residues. Our study also reveals an unexpected interplay between the wild type Sup35p and proteins expressed from the sup35(KK) alleles during prionization. Both Sup35-M1p and Sup35-M2p coaggregated with Sup35p, but only sup35-M2 led to prion loss in a dominant manner. We suggest that in the fibrils, Sup35p can bind to Sup35-M1p in the same conformation, whereas Sup35-M2p only allowed the Sup35p conformation that leads to the non-heritable fold. Mutations sup35-M4 and sup35-M5 influence the structure of the prion forming region to a lesser extent, and can lead to the formation of new prion variants.