This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Several lines of evidence have shown that defects in the endo-lysosomal autophagy degradation pathway and the ubiquitin-proteasome system play a role in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Early pathological changes, such as marked enlargement of endosomal compartments, gradual accumulation of autophagic vacuoles (AVs) and lysosome dyshomeostasis, are well-recognized in AD. In addition to these pathological indicators, many genetic variants of key regulators in the endo-lysosomal autophagy networks and the ubiquitin-proteasome system have been found to be associated with AD. Furthermore, altered expression levels of key proteins in these pathways have been found in AD human brain tissues, primary cells and AD mouse models. In this review, we discuss potential disease mechanisms underlying the dysregulation of protein homeostasis governing systems. While the importance of two major protein degradation pathways in AD pathogenesis has been highlighted, targeted therapy at key components of these pathways has great potential in developing novel therapeutic interventions for AD. Future investigations are needed to define molecular mechanisms by which these complex regulatory systems become malfunctional at specific stages of AD development and progression, which will facilitate future development of novel therapeutic interventions. It is also critical to investigate all key components of the protein degradation pathways, both upstream and downstream, to improve our abilities to manipulate transport pathways with higher efficacy and less side effects.

The apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) genotype combines with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). However, the underlying mechanism(s) is not well-understood. We found that after exposure to repetitive blast-induced TBI, phosphoinositol biphosphate (PIP2) levels in hippocampal regions of young ApoE3 mice were elevated and associated with reduction in expression of a PIP2 degrading enzyme, synaptojanin 1 (synj1). In contrast, hippocampal PIP2 levels in ApoE4 mice did not increase after blast TBI. Following blast TBI, phospho-Tau (pTau) levels were unchanged in ApoE3 mice, whereas in ApoE4 mice, levels of pTau were significantly increased. To determine the causal relationship between changes in pTau and PIP2/synj1 levels after TBI, we tested if down-regulation of synj1 prevented blast-induced Tau hyper-phosphorylation. Knockdown of synj1 decreased pTau levels in vitro, and abolished blast-induced elevation of pTau in vivo. Blast TBI increased glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3β activities in ApoE4 mice, and synj1 knockdown inhibited GSK3β phosphorylation of Tau. Together, these data suggest that ApoE proteins regulate brain phospholipid homeostasis in response to TBI and that the ApoE4 isoform is dysfunctional in this process. Down-regulation of synj1 rescues blast-induced phospholipid dysregulation and prevents development of Tau hyper-phosphorylation in ApoE4 carriers.

Women have traditionally been excluded from positions of power, specifically in the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Believed to diminish the intellectual capabilities of scholars, women were historically barred from many opportunities. The first woman was not admitted to the forefront of scientific developments founded in 1666, the French Academy of Sciences until 1979. Over the past half a century, this situation has gradually improved with changes in the scientific landscape and an increased awareness of gender bias in science. More women are encouraged to pursue careers in science, and their interests in science are being cultivated. However, we have not yet reached equality. Where are we in 2019? Data suggest that female scientists continue to face challenges and hurdles in their career advancement. As to be expected from This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract