Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T10:56:07.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biophysical studies of protein misfolding and aggregation in in vivo models of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2020

Tessa Sinnige*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Centre for Misfolding Diseases, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Karen Stroobants
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Centre for Misfolding Diseases, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Christopher M. Dobson
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Centre for Misfolding Diseases, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Michele Vendruscolo*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Centre for Misfolding Diseases, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
*
Authors for correspondence: Tessa Sinnige, E-mail: tessa.sinnige@northwestern.edu; Michele Vendruscolo, E-mail: mv245@cam.ac.uk
Authors for correspondence: Tessa Sinnige, E-mail: tessa.sinnige@northwestern.edu; Michele Vendruscolo, E-mail: mv245@cam.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's diseases (PD), are characterised by the formation of aberrant assemblies of misfolded proteins. The discovery of disease-modifying drugs for these disorders is challenging, in part because we still have a limited understanding of their molecular origins. In this review, we discuss how biophysical approaches can help explain the formation of the aberrant conformational states of proteins whose neurotoxic effects underlie these diseases. We discuss in particular models based on the transgenic expression of amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau in AD, and α-synuclein in PD. Because biophysical methods have enabled an accurate quantification and a detailed understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying protein misfolding and aggregation in vitro, we expect that the further development of these methods to probe directly the corresponding mechanisms in vivo will open effective routes for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

Information

Type
Major Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Commonly used biophysical methods for the study of protein misfolding in vivo and in vitro

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Mechanisms of amyloid formation in vitro. (a) In vitro ThT aggregation assay of Aβ42 at different starting monomer concentrations. The curves are fitted using a model that includes both primary and secondary nucleation. Figure adapted from Cohen et al. (2013b). (b) Schematic representation of the kinetic model of fibril formation including primary and secondary processes. Soluble monomeric forms of proteins undergo primary nucleation to generate oligomeric species that have the potential to convert into fibrils. The formation of fibrils is significantly enhanced by secondary processes that enable aggregates to proliferate by the further association of soluble protein molecules. The latter processes include fragmentation, which generates new fibril ends at which growth occurs, and surface catalysed nucleation, in which fibril surface functions as a template for the generation of new oligomeric and fibrillar species. Figure based on Cohen et al. (2013b). (c) ThT aggregation assay of α-synuclein in the presence of different concentrations of dimyristoylphosphatidylserine (DMPS) vesicles (black, 60 μM; purple, 120 μM; dark blue, 180 μM; light blue, 240 μM; dark green, 300 μM; light green, 450 μM; yellow, 600 μM; orange, 1200 μM). Figure adapted from Galvagnion et al. (2015). (d) Schematic representation of the dominating mechanism of amyloid formation by α-synuclein in the presence of small unilamellar lipid vesicles, which present an interface for nucleation to occur. Figure based on Galvagnion et al. (2015).

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of Aβ, tau and α-synuclein, and of the mutations that have been used in the models described in this paper. (a) APP and its sequential processing into the Aβ peptide by β-secretase and γ-secretase. Cleavage sites are indicated by the residue number at the N-terminal side of the cleavage; mutations are indicated with the residue numbers of full-length APP and those of the Aβ40/42 cleavage product. Other APP processing pathways, such as α-secretase processing, and other Aβ forms, such as Aβ39 or Aβ43, are omitted for clarity. (b) The MAPT gene encoding tau undergoes splicing to yield six possible isoforms. The full-length 2N4R tau isoform of 441 residues are shown; 1N and 0N isoforms lack the second or both N-terminal inserts, respectively, and 3R isoforms lack the second microtubule repeat (dashed boxes). The hexapeptide stretches VQIINK and VQIVYK, which have the propensity to form β-strands and are essential for the aggregation of tau, are located at the microtubule binding repeats. (c) Schematic representation of α-synuclein, containing three major regions: an N-terminal amphipathic domain with α-helical propensity where several familial mutations are located (residues 1–61), a central hydrophobic part (residues 61–95) known as the NAC region that is essential for amyloid formation, and an acidic C-terminal region (residues 95–140).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Examples of in vivo models of protein misfolding for the study of AD and PD. (a) The budding yeast S. cerevisiae is the most widely used eukaryotic model organism, featuring a conserved cellular organisation, including the nucleus and the secretory system. (b) The expression of two copies of human α-synuclein (either in the wild-type or the familial A53T and A30P forms) in S. cerevisiae leads to the formation of cytoplasmic puncta for the wild-type and A53T variants, but not for A30P; reproduced from Outeiro and Lindquist (2003) with permission from Science. (c) The nematode worm C. elegans is a multicellular organism that consists of several tissues, such as a digestive system comprised of the pharynx and the intestine. (d) Left: C. elegans expressing Aβ42 in the body wall muscle cells display deposits that can be stained with the amyloid-binding dye X-34. The head region of an Aβ42-expressing animal is shown, with deposits indicated by arrows; asterisks mark unspecific staining of the mouth and intestine. Right: Close-up of C. elegans expressing Aβ42 in the two BAG neurons, stained with an anti-Aβ antibody (green) and DAPI (blue). Adapted from Sinnige et al. (2019). (e) The fruit fly D. melanogaster has a more complex brain than C. elegans, and possesses a compound eye that is often used as a read-out for toxicity. (f) The expression of Aβ42, but not of Aβ40, leads to the formation of ThS-positive deposits. The arrows indicate deposits; Kn: Kenyon cell layer; Ca: calyx. Reproduced from Iijima et al. (2004); copyright 2004, National Academy of Sciences. (g) Rodent models are typically used for pre-clinical studies, but also provide a more complex system for fundamental studies of human disease mechanisms. (h) Overexpression in mice of human APP and tau with familial mutations leads to the formation of Aβ deposits positive for ThS staining (left) and structures resembling tau tangles as visualised by Bielschowsky silver staining (right). The arrow in the left panel indicates a neuron. Reproduced from Ribé et al. (2005) with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 4

Table 2. List of yeast models of protein misfolding in AD and PD

Figure 5

Table 3. List of worm models of protein misfolding in AD and PD

Figure 6

Table 4. List of fruit fly models of protein misfolding in AD and PD

Figure 7

Table 5. List of rodent models of protein misfolding in AD and PD