ºÚÁÏÍø

Microglial activation; Neurodegenerative diseases; Alzheimer's disease; Parkinson's disease; Neuroinflammation; Microglia

Introduction

Microglia, the resident immune cells of the central nervous system (CNS), are essential for maintaining homeostasis and responding to injuries and pathological conditions. These cells are highly dynamic, constantly surveying their environment and adapting to changes in the neural tissue. In the context of neurodegenerative diseases, microglia often undergo pathological activation, contributing to disease progression. While microglial activation plays a protective role by clearing debris and promoting tissue repair, excessive or chronic activation can exacerbate neurodegenerative processes by releasing pro-inflammatory cytokines, reactive oxygen species, and other toxic molecules that damage neuronal cells. Understanding the balance between the beneficial and detrimental effects of microglial activation is critical for developing effective treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and multiple sclerosis. This review explores the role of microglial activation in the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative diseases, focusing on the molecular pathways involved, the consequences of chronic activation, and the therapeutic implications [1-6].

Results

In neurodegenerative diseases, microglial activation is often seen as a hallmark feature of the disease pathology. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), microglial activation is closely associated with amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles, both of which are pathological signatures of AD. Microglia are known to interact with Aβ plaques, attempting to clear the toxic aggregates through phagocytosis. However, in AD, microglial activation is often dysregulated, leading to a vicious cycle of inflammation and neuronal damage. Similarly, in Parkinson's disease (PD), microglia become activated in response to the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons. The release of inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) by activated microglia contributes to neuronal injury, exacerbating the progression of PD. In multiple sclerosis (MS), an autoimmune disease characterized by demyelination, microglial activation plays a critical role in initiating and sustaining neuroinflammation, contributing to myelin damage and axonal loss. Studies have shown that microglia are activated through various molecular pathways, including the recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) via toll-like receptors (TLRs) and other pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). These interactions trigger the activation of intracellular signaling cascades such as nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), which regulates the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and mediators. In addition, microglia activation can involve the NLRP3 inflammasome, a multiprotein complex that plays a role in the activation of caspase-1 and the subsequent release of IL-1β and IL-18, further propagating inflammation. While microglial activation is implicated in neurodegenerative diseases, it is not always detrimental. In the early stages of neurodegeneration, microglia may exhibit neuroprotective functions, such as clearing apoptotic cells, modulating synaptic pruning, and promoting neuronal survival. However, when activation becomes chronic or dysregulated, microglia can adopt a pro-inflammatory phenotype that accelerates neurodegeneration. The transition between these states is influenced by several factors, including the local environment, the presence of neurotoxic molecules, and genetic predisposition [7-10].

Discussion

The dual role of microglia in neurodegenerative diseases—both protective and harmful—has been a subject of intense research. In the early stages of diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, microglia may act as guardians by phagocytosing toxic aggregates, clearing dead cells, and supporting neuronal health. However, in the later stages, chronic activation leads to sustained inflammation, which may worsen neuronal injury and promote disease progression. This shift from neuroprotective to neurotoxic microglial activity is influenced by multiple factors, including the expression of surface receptors, the type of inflammatory mediators released, and changes in the neuroinflammatory environment. Recent advances in understanding microglial biology have revealed the complexity of these cells. Single-cell RNA sequencing and other high-throughput technologies have allowed for a more detailed characterization of microglial subtypes and their roles in neurodegenerative diseases. These studies have revealed that microglial activation is not a uniform process but rather a spectrum of responses, which can range from neuroprotective to neurotoxic depending on the disease stage and cellular context. For instance, microglia may exhibit different activation profiles in Alzheimer's disease compared to Parkinson's disease, with the former showing a more pronounced pro-inflammatory phenotype and the latter demonstrating a mixed activation profile.

The potential for targeting microglial activation as a therapeutic strategy has been explored in several studies. Modulating microglial activation could involve either suppressing harmful inflammation or promoting neuroprotective microglial functions. Strategies to inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokines or block the signaling pathways involved in microglial activation, such as the NF-κB pathway or the NLRP3 inflammasome, have shown promise in preclinical models of neurodegenerative diseases. Additionally, targeting specific microglial receptors, such as the purinergic receptors or the colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R), which are involved in microglial activation and survival, represents another potential therapeutic approach.

Despite the progress in understanding microglial activation, several challenges remain in translating these findings into clinical therapies. One of the main obstacles is the complexity of microglial functions and their context-dependent nature. Additionally, the blood-brain barrier (BBB) presents a significant hurdle for delivering drugs targeting microglial activation. Furthermore, the potential side effects of modulating microglial activity, such as impairing the normal immune functions of microglia, must be carefully considered.

Conclusion

Microglial activation plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases, with its effects ranging from neuroprotection to neurotoxicity depending on the disease context. While microglia can initially support neuronal health by clearing toxic aggregates and promoting repair, chronic activation results in sustained neuroinflammation, contributing to the progression of diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and multiple sclerosis. Understanding the molecular mechanisms that govern microglial activation is critical for developing targeted therapies that can modulate microglial activity without compromising their essential functions. Future research should focus on identifying specific pathways and receptors that can be targeted to shift microglial activation towards a neuroprotective state. By fine-tuning microglial responses, it may be possible to slow or even reverse the progression of neurodegenerative diseases.

1. Steffen M, Philipp KJ, Paul HL, Stephanie M (2019) . Dialogues Clin Neurosci 21: 309-307.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý , ,

2. Schwartz K, Boles BR (2013). .Curr Opin Microbiol 16:93–99 .

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý , ,

3. Wang WY, Tan MS, Yu JT, Tan L (2015). .Ann Transl Med3:136.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý , ,

4. Schwab C, Klegeris A, McGeer PL (2010). .Biochim Biophys Acta.1802:889-902.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý , ,

5. Lin L, Zheng LJ, Zhang LJ (2018). .Mol Neurobiol 55:8243-8250.

              , ,

6. Julia DK, Bruin ED, Gradisar M (2019) . Sleep Med Clin 14: 155-165.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý  , ,

7. Daniel D, Carmen C, Silviu M, Cristina M, Simona S (2018) . J Clin Psychol 74: 304-318.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý , ,

8. Hayashi S,Hamada T, ZinsouDGA, OshiroM,Itoi K, et al. (2017) . Sci Rep 7:6187

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý , ,

9. Quiros M, NishioH, NeumannPA, SiudaD, BrazilJC,et al. (2017) . JClin Invest 127: 3510-3520

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý  , ,

10. Bailey M, HaversonK, InmanC, HarrisC, JonesP,et al. (2005) . Proc Nutr Soc64: 451-457

, ,