Cited by 1,650Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments

P ROTOFIBRILS , P ORES , F IBRILS, AND N EURODEGENERATION : Separating the Responsible Protein Aggregates from The Innocent Bystanders

Caughey, Byron, Lansbury, Peter T.·2003·Annual Review of Neuroscience

Abstract

Many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (prion diseases), are characterized at autopsy by neuronal loss and protein aggregates that are typically fibrillar. A convergence of evidence strongly suggests that protein aggregation is neurotoxic and not a product of cell death. However, the identity of the neurotoxic aggregate and the mechanism by which it disables and eventually kills a neuron are unknown. Both biophysical studies aimed at elucidating the precise mechanism of in vitro aggregation and animal modeling studies support the emerging notion that an ordered prefibrillar oligomer, or protofibril, may be responsible for cell death and that the fibrillar form that is typically observed at autopsy may actually be neuroprotective. A subpopulation of protofibrils may function as pathogenic amyloid pores. An analogous mechanism may explain the neurotoxicity of the prion protein; recent data demonstrates that the disease-associated, infectious form of the prion protein differs from the neurotoxic species. This review focuses on recent experimental studies aimed at identification and characterization of the neurotoxic protein aggregates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.010302.081142

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In vitro, Aβ42 aggregates into amyloid much more rapidly than Aβ40.

    “In vitro, A␤42 aggregates into amyloid much more rapidly than A␤40 (Caughey and Lansbury, 2003).”

    From Aβ40 Inhibits Amyloid Deposition<i>In Vivo</i> (2007) · cites this paper as Caughey and Lansbury, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caughey, B., & Lansbury, P. T.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Neuroscience
Published
2003-03
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
267-298
ISSN
  • 0147-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4126
OpenAlex
W2097965815
Cited by
1,650
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 109
FWCI
12.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Prion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
protein aggregation, neurodegeneration, protofibrils, prefibrillar oligomers, neurotoxicity, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, prion disease, prion protein, amyloid fibrils, neuronal cell death
MeSH terms
Superoxide Dismutase-1, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Nerve Degeneration, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Prions, Superoxide Dismutase, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Neurofibrillary Tangles, PrPSc Proteins, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Synucleins, Plaque, Amyloid, In Vitro Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review