Autophagy is a promising process for the treatment of Down syndrome: implications for linking inflammation and redox homeostasis


Abstract

Trisomy 21, characterized by the presence of an additional chromosome 21, leads to a set of clinical features commonly referred to as Down syndrome (DS). The various pathologic phenotypes manifested in DS are the result of a combination of factors that together lead to neurological changes. Mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, impaired and altered patterns of metabolism, and altered protein homeostasis and signal transduction are also influential factors in degenerative changes in the central nervous system. In DS, the triplication of chromosome 21 and the micronuclei arising from the missegregation of chromosomes are closely associated with inflammation and the development of redox homeostasis. Autophagy, an essential biological process that affects cellular homeostasis, is a powerful tool to facilitate the degradation of redundant or dysfunctional cytoplasmic components, thereby enabling the recycling of their constituents. Targeting the autophagy process has been suggested as a promising method to balance intracellular inflammation and oxidative stress and improve mitochondrial dysfunction. In this review, we summarize the role of autophagy in regulating inflammation and redox homeostasis in DS and discuss their crosslinks. A comprehensive elucidation of the roles of autophagy in DS offers novel insights for the development of therapeutic strategies aimed at aneuploidy-associated diseases.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.