Figure 1.
General properties of food packaging materials.
Citation: Jean A. Rondal. Down syndrome: A curative prospect?[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(2): 168-193. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020012
| [1] | Mulugeta H. Woldemariam, Giovanni Belingardi, Ermias G. Koricho, Daniel T. Reda . Effects of nanomaterials and particles on mechanical properties and fracture toughness of composite materials: a short review. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(6): 1191-1212. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.1191 |
| [2] | Worraphol Nansu, Gareth Ross, Sukunya Ross, Nungruthai Suphrom, Sararat Mahasaranon . Developments of pH responsive biodegradable monitoring film based on poly(vinyl alcohol) incorporated with Sappan heartwood extract for food packaging applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(3): 465-483. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023026 |
| [3] | Neerajkumar Wayzode, Vinod Suryawanshi . Mechanical properties of graphene nanoplatelets reinforced glass/epoxy composites manufactured using resin film infusion process. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(4): 693-709. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023038 |
| [4] | Pedro Folhento, Manuel Braz-César, Rui Barros . Cyclic response of a reinforced concrete frame: Comparison of experimental results with different hysteretic models. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(6): 917-931. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021056 |
| [5] | Harikrishnan Pulikkalparambil, Jyotishkumar Parameswaranpillai, Jinu Jacob George, Krittirash Yorseng, Suchart Siengchin . Physical and thermo-mechanical properties of bionano reinforced poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate), hemp/CNF/Ag-NPs composites. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(3): 814-831. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.3.814 |
| [6] | José Luis Del Rosario-Arellano, Gloria Ivette Bolio-López, Alex Valadez-González, Luis Zamora-Peredo, Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Isaac Meneses-Márquez, Pablo Andrés-Meza, Otto Raúl Leyva-Ovalle . Exploration of cassava clones for the development of biocomposite films. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(1): 85-104. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022006 |
| [7] | Ashhad Imam, Keshav K Sharma, Virendra Kumar, Neeraj Singh . A review study on sustainable development of ultra high-performance concrete. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(1): 9-35. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022002 |
| [8] | Ruaa Al-Mezrakchi, Ahmed Al-Ramthan, Shah Alam . Designing and modeling new generation of advanced hybrid composite sandwich structure armors for ballistic threats in defense applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(5): 608-631. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.5.608 |
| [9] | Yong X. Gan . A review of electrohydrodynamic casting energy conversion polymer composites. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(2): 206-225. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.2.206 |
| [10] | Alessandro De Luca, Francesco Caputo . A review on analytical failure criteria for composite materials. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(5): 1165-1185. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.5.1165 |
Packaging can be defined as materials that are used to contain or temporarily contain, handle, protect, or transport articles and are generally disposed of as waste after usage [1]. In the food processing industry, packaging is a crucial process for preserving food quality and safety, providing food protection, presenting food, and preventing food degradation by physical, chemical, or biological contamination [2,3,4,5]. Kim et al. [6] also mentioned that food packaging that is successful in the market should have high quality and safety standards and should meet the requirements of governmental regulations and policies.
Different food packaging applications affect the selection of materials that are used as food packaging. The selection of food packaging materials highly depends on the nature of the food to be packed [6,7]. Paine & Paine [8] listed several vital factors that must be considered when selecting packaging materials. The guidelines proposed by Paine & Paine [8] for the food packaging designer or manufacturer to consider while selecting suitable materials for a product include packaging production methods, display requirements, economic considerations, marketing needs, specific product characteristics, and packaging material properties. Some food packaging materials have antimicrobial functions, good mechanical and thermal properties, suitable optical properties, ecofriendliness, and good barrier properties, including gas, vapor, and aroma barrier properties [9]. Figure 1 shows the general properties of food packaging materials.
The barrier properties of food packaging, including permeability by gas, water vapor, and aroma, are one of the most crucial properties for consideration in the selection of food packaging materials [10]. Given that food packaging acts as a protective layer for food, food packaging materials should at least have good resistance to gases and moisture from the environment [11]. The ultimate goal for food packaging is to maintain the quality of the food within the designed shelf-life by providing a sufficient barrier [12]. If the packaging lacks a good oxygen barrier or moisture barrier property, the food becomes rancid after oxidization and acquires an unpleasant smell or taste. Rancidity is caused by the oxidation of oils and fats through two main pathways: oxidation by oxygen and hydration by water [13,14]. Aroma is another basic element of food. Aroma scalping occurs if the packaging has a poor aroma barrier, in this case, either the food aroma diffuses out or is affected by aromas from the environment through the packaging materials and causes flavor changes [15,16].
Improvements in nanotechnology, especially in nanomaterials, can greatly improve the barrier properties of packaging materials [17]. The industrial application of nanocomposites has great potential to improve barrier properties because the production cost of nanocomposites is very low [18]. Sangroniz et al. [19] investigated packaging material exhibiting chemical recyclability while possessing the desired mechanical and barrier properties.
Food safety is a crucial issue and a basic human right [20]. If we ignore food safety and allow food to be spoiled by microorganisms or pathogens, it will be unsafe to consume and may cause illness if consumed [21]. Thus, food safety and food quality are issues of concern for consumers and food industries. These issues also reflect the need for an antimicrobial packaging system wherein an antimicrobial agent is incorporated into packaging materials or polymers to prevent microorganisms from contaminating food [22]. In general, an antimicrobial agent prolongs food preservation and makes food safe to consume by deteriorating the growth kinetics of microorganisms [23]. Some common antimicrobial nanocomposites are chitosan, silver nanoparticles, nanoclays, silica, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and copper [22,24].
Different types of packaging materials, namely, glass, metal, plastics, wood, and paper/paperboard, are available on the market [1,11]. The pros and cons of different food packaging materials are listed in Table 1.
| Type of materials | Pros | Cons | References |
| Glass | Recyclable Inert to a variety of foods |
Heavy and fragile Expensive to transport |
[25,26] |
| Metal | Long shelf life Resistant to heat |
Expensive May be corroded |
[27,28] |
| Plastic | Difficult to break Can be shaped into various forms |
Poor heat resistance Nonbiodegradable |
[25,29] |
| Wood | Sturdy Easy to repair |
Only used as pallets and crates | [1] |
| Paper/paperboard | Easily printable surfaces Low cost Lightweight |
Weak barrier against water Used for dry products only |
[4,27] |
DownLoad:
CSV
Parkesine, a cellulose derivative invented by Alexander Parkes, is the first manmade plastic and was publically presented at the 1862 Great International Exhibition in London [6,30,31]. Since then, plastics have been developed and diversified [6]. The plastics that are used today are predominantly made from crude oil or natural gas and are also known as petroleum-based plastics [32]. Plastics are good choices for food packaging given their cheapness, easy processability, light weight, good resistance to oil and chemicals, excellent gas and water vapor barrier properties, and easily reusability and recyclability in terms of sustainability [1,3,5,6,33]. Some conventional petroleum or fossil-based plastics used in packaging include polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), and other plastics, such as bioplastic polylactide (PLA) [1,33,34].
Polyethylene (PE) and PP are of the most common and generally used materials in food packaging because they possess excellent chemical and moisture resistance; moreover, they are easy to process and cheap [11,25,35]. PE consists of two basic categories, namely HDPE and LDPE, wherein HDPE plastics have numerous short side branches and a tightly packed structure, whereas LDPE have numerous long branches [25]. Although they are good chemical and moisture barriers, they are relatively permeable to oxygen and are thus poor odor barriers [36]. PE also has relatively lower heat resistance than other plastics, and PE films melt at relatively low temperatures [37].
PET is an emerging material that has been used in food packaging for the last several years [25,38] because it has higher heat resistance and mechanical strength than many plastics [37]. Moreover, it is an inert material that possesses good gas and moisture barrier properties and can be modified to present specific properties that are suitable for various packaging applications [11,38]. This characteristic makes PET a good option as a packaging material.
PLA is a promising biobased and biodegradable polymer that can be used as a food packaging material [33,39]. PLA is ideal for fresh organic packaging because it has good breathing properties [1]. However, pure PLA exhibits some limitations, such as water permeability, brittleness, and easy degradation under significant increases in temperature [1,39]. Compositing PLA with other components can confer PLA with increased tensile strength and water resistance, antimicrobial properties, and reduced processing costs [33,40,41].
However, these plastics are mostly nonbiodegradable, nonrenewable, and noncompostable, therefore causing major environmental and disposal issues worldwide [5]. They are the most challenging packaging materials to recycle [1]. Traditional plastics are so durable that they are not readily degraded in their ambient surroundings; they persist in the environment because polymers require numerous or even hundreds of years to decompose in the normal natural environment [42]. According to a report from the OECD Environment Directorate [32], over 60% of plastic waste comes from packaging. Singh et al. [42] stated that 90% of plastic solid wastes are recyclable, but 80% of them are sent to landfills, 8% are incinerated, and only 7% are recycled. The landfill disposal of HDPE also causes serious consequences because it produces greenhouse gases [42].
Food packaging should be natural and environmentally friendly [43]. Bioplastics or biopolymers from renewable resources have attracted growing interest from industries as a solution to the environmental problems and limited resources of petroleum-based polymers [2,33]. In 2018, the bioplastics used in the packaging market accounted for approximately 65% of the global bioplastic production [44]. Some currently produced and applied biopolymers based on renewable resources include PLA, cellulose, and starch, which are biopolymers that are directly obtained from argowastes [33]. However, "biobased" does not equal "biodegradable" or compostable [45,46,47]. Biobased products include raw materials that are renewable and can be replenished via natural processes [48]. Biodegradable products include polymers that can be degraded by microorganisms within a certain period of time in the environment [48]. Compostable bioplastics are a subset of biodegradable plastic. Therefore, all compostable bioplastics are biodegradable but not all biodegradable bioplastics are compostable [49]. Table 2 shows the different types of bioplastics found on the market.
| Types of bioplastic | Properties | Examples | References |
| Polymers from biomass | Compostable | Starch-based, cellulose-based, protein-based | [50,51] |
| Polymers from bio-derived monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | PLA, bio-based PE, bio-based PET, bio-based PP | [52,53,54,55] |
| Polymers from microbial fermentation | Biodegradable | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | [56] |
| Polymers from both bio-derived monomers and petroleum-based monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), Pro-oxidant Additive Containing (PAC) plastic | [53,57] |
DownLoad:
CSV
However, if used alone for packaging purposes, biopolymers or bioplastics show some limitations due to their poor water barrier properties, brittleness, high vapor permeability, and low heat deflection temperatures [3,5,6]. Thus, biopolymers are strengthened with nanofillers to enhance their mechanical properties, barrier properties, and heat [3,5]. Bioplastics also have some limitations in terms of production costs, functionality, and compatibility with other polymers in recycling streams [6,58].
As mentioned above, bioplastics alone have some limitations, including low water and chemical resistance, low heat resistance, and brittleness. The strength of bioplastics can be enhanced through several ways, including physical and chemical crosslinking. Some research has done on the physical treatments, including heat, dehydrothermal, and ultrasonic treatments, of protein-based bioplastics [59,60]. However, this review focuses on the reinforcement of bioplastics through chemical crosslinking. Several potential additives can be used as fillers for bioplastics: nanoclays, cellulose, silica, silver nanoparticles, and metal oxides (zinc, magnesium, and titanium oxides) [3,5]. These additives are in the micro- to nanosized form. Nanofillers can enhance the mechanical properties, barrier properties, and heat resistance of bioplastic nanocomposites compared with those of virgin bioplastics [3]. Chakravartula et al. [61] produced an edible composite film based on pectin/alginate/whey protein concentrate. Although nanofiller reinforcement can greatly improve bioplastic performance, we should not forget about the environmental and human health safety concerns posed by these nanomaterials during their application [62,63].
Nanoclay or layered silicates are one of the most commonly used and researched agents for food packaging [5]. Nanoclays have the advantages of ubiquity in nature, easy processing, excellent performance, and cheapness [5,64]. Nanoclays have been successfully used as nanofillers in food packaging materials because they enhance the barrier properties of nanocomposites, improve mechanical properties and water resistance, decrease water vapor permeability, and confer flame retardance [64,65,66]. Mohanty & Swain [3] stated that nanoclay composites can be classified into three categories, namely intercalated, exfoliated, and tactoid. Exfoliated nanoclay has been proven to exhibit the best properties as the result of the optimal interaction between polymer and clay [3,5]. Montmorillonite is the most widely used nanoclay in food packaging because its high surface area and aspect ratio make it an excellent reinforcing filler [5,62].
Cellulose is among the most abundant polymers in nature that can readily be derived from available biomass [33,67]. Nanocellulose is also suitable for use in bioplastic reinforcement because cellulose can produce high strength-to-weight ratio nanomaterials and has an expected lower cost than other nanomaterials while also being biodegradable and environmentally friendly [5,67]. Farahhanim et al. [68] stated that cellulose has an encouraging prospect for enhancing the mechanical and thermal properties of polymers. Two main types of cellulose nanostructures can be applied as reinforcement in food packaging materials, namely, cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) and nanofibers (CNFs) [5,69]. Xu et al. [70] reported that CNCs and CNFs can reinforce polymer nanocomposites and that CNFs possess higher strength and moduli than CNCs because of the more significant aspect ratio and fiber entanglement but reduced strain-at-failure shown by CNFs.
Bacterial cellulose (BC) is synthesized from microorganisms [69,71]. It has several advantages over plant-based cellulose, such as short harvest time, easy cultivation, and zero lignin and hemicellulose content [72,73,74]. Given these properties, BC is ecofriendly because it does not require harsh chemicals for purification [69]. Zhao et al. [71] stated that the main drawback of BC in industrial application is its high production cost because its yield is highly affected by medium content, culture condition, and bacteria used.
Silver nanoparticles are widely known for their antimicrobial properties, which they exert by degrading cell membranes and causing bacterial death [3,5]. Studies on applying silver nanoparticles in food packaging materials have found positive results for the inhibition of bacterial growth and the extension of food shelf-life [62,75,76]. Metal oxides, such as magnesium oxide [77,78], zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide, can act as antimicrobial agents when applied in food packaging materials [3,5,62,63]. These oxides also have been recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe for food application [62].
PLA is a type of compostable and biocompatible thermoplastic originating from renewable resources, such as corn, sugarcane, and potato starch; it is widely used in packaging applications [1,2,47,79]. PLA is limited by its high brittleness, low deformation at peak, low melt strength, and weak gas barrier relative to polyolefin [2]. Thus, PLA must be modified to improve its properties. Several materials, such as plasticizers, polymers, nanoclays, carbon nanotubes, and starch, have been blended into PLA matrixes [2]. PLA is also frequently blended with other biobased and or biodegradable polymers, such as PHAs, to improve stiffness and strength and to reduce [47,80]. Genovese et al. [81] reported that polymers with triblock ABA architecture, wherein A is PLA and B is an ad hoc synthesized random biobased aliphatic copolyester poly(propylene/neopentyl glycol succinate), show improved mechanical and barrier properties. The B block facilitates composting. Figure 2 shows the general structure of PLA.
Starch is one of the least expensive biomaterials [82]. It is also abundant, biodegradable, and renewable, and its possibility of blending with conventional polymers has garnered wide interest in the bioplastic market [2,33,83]. Blending starch with a nonbiodegradable plastic can also promote the biodegradability of the plastic [5,84]. Native starch lacks thermoplastic properties [83]. Thermoplastic starch (TPS) can be obtained through the addition of plasticizers under heating after starch destruction [2,5,83]. Starch is often used as a filler for other bioplastics to reduce production cost [2]. Blending with nanoclay improves the properties, including mechanical properties, thermal stability, and water resistance, of TPS [83]. Sun et al. [84] also discovered that starch films reinforced with calcium carbonate nanoparticles show significant improvements in tensile strength, elongation, and Young's modulus. Fibers can also enhance the mechanical properties, gas barrier properties, moisture resistance, and thermal stability of TPS [83,85]. Figure 3 shows the general structure of starch.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), which are environmentally friendly, biodegradable biobased polymers that can be produced via bacterial fermentation, have drawn considerable attention recently [86,87]. The properties of these biopolymers are very similar to those of traditional fossil fuel-based plastics, such as PP and PE; given these properties, PHAs have great commercial potential to replace conventional plastics [86,88,89]. However, PHAs face some drawbacks in commercial applications because they are brittle, thermosensitive, and ductile and possess limited processing malleability and poor gas barrier properties [90,91]. Mannina et al. [86] also reported that the production cost of PHAs is one of the most important factors to consider in the industrial production of PHAs for competition with conventional plastic. Various polymers and nanofillers, such as carbon nanotubes, nanoclays, cellulose, metal oxides, and bioactive glasses, are composited with PHAs to improve their performances significantly [9,90,91]. The most popular commercially applied PHA is poly(3-hydroxybutyrate), which is used in various industries as food packaging and films and in the medical field [48]. Figure 4 shows the general structure of PHA.
Polybutylene succinate (PBS) is a biodegradable polymer that is produced through the condensation of succinic acid and 1, 4-butanediol [92,93]. PBS has high crystallinity, great mechanical properties and thermal stability, and good dyeing properties and is thus suitable for processing through conventional methods, such as injection molding and extrusion [48,88]. These properties also make PBS a suitable replacement for HDPE and PP in various applications, such as housewares, agriculture, and packaging [88,94]. PBS has very good flexibility [2,94,95,96], and many studies have blended PLA and PBS to enhance their properties [95,96,97,98,99]. Soccio et al. [100] blended inedible wheat flour with various amounts of PBS-based green copolymer to obtain the polymer with the best mechanical performance. Quattrosoldi et al. [101] improved the thermal stability, flexibility, and compostability of PBS by adding different amounts of Pripol 1009. These studies showed that PBS has high potential for production as a packaging material if its physical properties undergo further improvement. Figure 5 shows the general structure of PBS.
Furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA) is a new emerging biobased polymer that has attracted considerable interest from the scientific and industrial fields [102]. It was identified by the US Department of Energy as a top value-added chemical derived from biomass [103]. FDCA can be synthesized via several methods, including oxidative production from biobased 5-hydroxymethylfurfural through electrochemical, catalytic, or noncatalytic and biocatalytic processes [104]. A completely biobased alternative to PET, namely poly(ethylene furanoate) (PEF), a composite produced from FDCA, has been recently developed [105]. Terzopoulou et al. [106] found that PEF can start undergoing commercialization in 2023 and will reach a market value of $129.3 million by 2025 given its similarity to PET. Guidotti et al. [107] also reported that biobased poly(pentamethylene furanoate), one of the composites produced from FDCA, has outstanding physical properties and excellent barrier and mechanical properties, which are the main factors for consideration when selecting packaging materials. However, the use of FDCA remains limited due to its high price and bottlenecked industrial production [108].
A report on global plastic analysis by Geyer et al. [109] stated that the cumulative plastic waste produced from primary and recycled plastics in 1950–2015 reached 6300 million tons. According to the report, 60% of plastic wastes are sent to landfills, 12% are incinerated, and only 9% are recycled. The packaging industry accounted for the highest amount of plastic waste or 54% (141 million tons) of the plastic waste generated in 2015 [109].
Since the mass production of plastics began decades ago, most plastic products have been disposed of as trash [110]. "Our World in Data" also shows the fate of global plastic waste from 1950 to 2015. Recycling started increasing in 1988 when only 0.60% of plastic waste was recycled; in 2015, 19.50% of plastic waste was recycled [111]. Figure 6 shows the global share of plastic waste by disposal method.
Although plastic waste is well known to be an emerging waste that can cause environmental pollution, the extent of this problem has yet to be realized. "The Star Online" reported that Malaysia is now one of the world's worst offenders in plastic pollution; in Malaysia, most plastics are simply dumped, a small portion is incinerated, and only 2% of plastic waste is recycled [112]. This scenario was exacerbated when Malaysia imported approximately half a million metric ton of plastic waste in the first half of 2018 [113]. A dataset in "Our Word in Data" showed that total plastic waste generation in Malaysia reached 2.03 million ton per year in 2010 and that 55% of the plastic waste was inadequately managed, accounting for 2.94% of the global mismanaged waste in 2010 [111]. Recently, some recycling factories in Malaysian cities have been found to operate illegally by burning plastic waste [114], and 139 plastic recycling factories all over Malaysia were shut down by the authorities in July 2019 [115]. Burning plastic causes air pollution, and the toxic fumes that are released from burning plastic pose a threat to human and animal health [116]. Other illegal plastic waste facilities in Malaysia use environmentally harmful techniques that may result in environmental impacts [113,117].
Based on the report "Biobased Building Blocks and Polymers—Global Capacities, Production and Trends 2018–2023" [118], the total production volume of bioplastics or biopolymers has reached 7.5 million tons, which account for 2% of the total production volume of petrochemical polymers. The report also stated that the production of biobased polymers will continuously increase with the expected CAGR of approximately 4% until 2023 and that its share in the total polymer and plastics market will remain constant at approximately 2% of the market. A report from European Bioplastics [119] further categorized bioplastics as biobased/nonbiodegradable and biodegradable. The total capacity of bioplastics in 2018 in this report is only 2.112 million tons, whereas that in the previous report is 7.5 million tons because European Bioplastics excluded polyurethane (PUR) given the absence of reliable data on the actual volumes of PUR [119].
Figure 7 depicts the global production capacities of bioplastics in 2018–2023. Figure 8 shows the global production capacities of bioplastics in 2018 by material type.
Along with the rise of plastic use worldwide, the sustainability issue has attracted growing attention as the United Nations urged all the countries to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 17 SDGs not only focus on development, but also people and environment. With the continuous increase in the global population, the agricultural sector has continued expanding and producing agricultural waste [120]. Those biomasses can be utilized and converted into resources, including bioplastics. Bioplastics are promising but are not the only solution to plastic pollution [121]. According to European Bioplastics [122], the current feedstock used to produce bioplastics relies on less than 0.02% of the global agricultural area. Several studies are investigating the use of using agricultural waste in the production of bioplastics [123,124,125,126].
Bioplastics have considerable potential as replacements of fossil-based plastics in many applications, such as food packaging. They have been applied in several food packaging industries. Molenveld et al. [1] reported that PLA and bio-PE are used as bottles to contain fruits, milk, and dairy products. PLA, starch blends, and cellophane are applied as films, trays/dishes, and containers to store food, such as fruit and vegetables, meats, fish, cheese, and eggs. Bioplastics can be used as single-use plastic materials. For example, Evoware, which produces seaweed-based packaging had produced edible grade-food wraps, coffee sachets, and dry seasoning sachets [127].
The authors would like to acknowledge Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for FRGS/1/2018/TK05/UKM/02/4 grant and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for the GUP-2017-041 grant for conducting related research.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | Kalpana V, Ram PVV, Soujanya P, et al. (2017) Robertsonian translocations t(21q;21q) and t(14q;21q) in Down syndrome. Int J Med Health Sci 6: 53-58. |
| [2] |
Asim A, Kumar A, Muthuswamy S, et al. (2015) Down syndrome: an insight of the disease. J Biomed Sci 22: 41-50. doi: 10.1186/s12929-015-0138-y
|
| [3] |
Lyle R, Bena F, Gagos S, et al. (2009) Genotype-phenotype correlations in Down syndrome identified by array CGH in 30 cases of partial trisomy and partial monosomy of chromosome 21. Eur J Hum Genet 17: 454-466. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2008.214
|
| [4] |
Ait Yahya-Graison E, Aubert J, Dauphinot L, et al. (2007) Classification of human chromosome 21 gene-expression variations in Down syndrome: Impact on disease phenotypes. Am J Hum Genet 81: 475-491. doi: 10.1086/520000
|
| [5] | Di Cunto F, Berto G (2013) Molecular pathways of Down Syndrome Critical Region genes. |
| [6] |
Barlow G, Chen X, Shi Z, et al. (2001) Down syndrome congenital heart disease: A narrowed region and a candidate gene. Genet Med 3: 91-101. doi: 10.1097/00125817-200103000-00002
|
| [7] |
Korbel J, Tirosh-Wagner T, Urban A, et al. (2009) The genetic architecture of Down syndrome phenotypes revealed by high-resolution analysis of human segmental trisomies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 12031-12036. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813248106
|
| [8] |
Antonorakis S, Lyle R, Dermitzakis E, et al. (2004) Chromosome 21 and Down syndrome: from genomics to pathophysiology. Nat Rev Genet 5: 725-738. doi: 10.1038/nrg1448
|
| [9] |
Sturgeon X, Le T, Ahmed M, et al. (2012) Pathways to cognitive deficits in Down syndrome. Prog Brain Res 197: 73-100. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-54299-1.00005-4
|
| [10] | Pelleri MC, Cicchini E, Locatelli C, et al. (2016) Systematic reanalysis of partial trisomy 21 cases with or without Down syndrome suggests a small region on 21q22.1.3 as critical to the phenotype. Hum Mol Genet 25: 2525-2538. |
| [11] |
Pelleri MC, Cicchini E, Petersen M, et al. (2019) Partial trisomy map: Ten cases further supporting the highly restricted Down syndrome critical region (HR-DSCR) on human chromosome 21. Mol Genet Genomic Med 7: e797. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.797
|
| [12] | Homfray T, Farndon P (2014) Fetal anomalies. The geneticist's approach. Twining's Textbook of Fetal Abnormalities London: Churchill Livingstone, 139-160. |
| [13] |
Rondal JA, Perera J, Spiker D (2011) Neurocognitive Rehabilitation of Down Syndrome Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511919299
|
| [14] |
Chapman R, Hesketh L (2000) Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome. Ment Retard Dev Dis Res Rev 6: 84-95. doi: 10.1002/1098-2779(2000)6:2<84::AID-MRDD2>3.0.CO;2-P
|
| [15] |
Abbeduto L, Warren S, Conners F (2007) Language development in Down syndrome: from the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Ment Retard Dev Dis Res Rev 13: 247-261. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20158
|
| [16] |
Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, et al. (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fiboblasts by defined factors. Cell 131: 861-72. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
|
| [17] |
Li L, Chang K, Wang P, et al. (2012) Trisomy correction in Down syndrome induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 11: 615-619. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2012.08.004
|
| [18] |
Jiang J, Jing Y, Cost G, et al. (2013) Translating dosage compensation for trisomy 21. Nature 500: 296-300. doi: 10.1038/nature12394
|
| [19] |
Amano T, Jeffries E, Amano M, et al. (2015) Correction of Down syndrome and Edwards syndrome aneuploidies in human cell cultures. DNA Res 22: 331-342. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsv016
|
| [20] |
Inoue M, Kajiwara K, Yamaguchi A, et al. (2019) Autonomous trisomic rescue of Down syndrome cells. Lab Invest 99: 885-897. doi: 10.1038/s41374-019-0230-0
|
| [21] | Epstein C (2001) Down syndrome (trisomy 21). The Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease New York: McGraw-Hill, 1223-1256. |
| [22] |
Lejeune J (1990) Pathogenesis of mental deficiency in trisomy 21. Am J Med Genet 37: 20-30. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320370705
|
| [23] |
Delabar JM, Théophile D, Rahmani Z, et al. (1993) Molecular mapping of twenty-four features of Down syndrome on chromosome 21. Eur J Hum Genet 1: 114-124. doi: 10.1159/000472398
|
| [24] |
Tejedor F, Hammerle B (2011) MNB/DYRK1A as a multiple regulator of neuronal development. FEBS J 278: 223-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07954.x
|
| [25] |
Thomazeau A, Lasalle O, Lafrati J, et al. (2014) Prefrontal deficits in a murine model overexpressing the Down syndrome candidate gene dyrk1a. J Neurosci 34: 1138-1147. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2852-13.2014
|
| [26] |
Li S, Qu Z, Haas M, et al. (2016) The HSA21 gene EURL/C21ORF91 controls neurogenesis within the cerebral cortex and is implicated in the pathogenesis of Down syndrome. Sci Rep 6: 29514. doi: 10.1038/srep29514
|
| [27] |
Chakrabarti L, Best T, Cramer N, et al. (2010) Olig1 and Olig2 triplication causes developmental brain defects in Down syndrome. Nat Neurosci 13: 927-934. doi: 10.1038/nn.2600
|
| [28] |
Manley W, Anderson S (2019) Dosage counts: Correcting trisomy-21-related phenotypes in human organoids and xenografts. Cell Stem Cell 24: 835-36. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.009
|
| [29] |
Ishihara K, Shimizu R, Takata K, et al. (2019) Perturbation of the immune cells and prenatal neurogenesis by the triplication of the Erg gene in mouse models of Down syndrome. Brain Pathol 30: 75-91. doi: 10.1111/bpa.12758
|
| [30] | Aboudafir E (2017) Trisomie 21: Perspectives Actuelles de Recherche de Traitement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation France: Université de Lorraine, Nancy, Available from: HAL, univ-Lorraine.fr/hal01932163. |
| [31] |
Fillat C, Bofill-De Ros X, Santos M, et al. (2014) Identification de genes clave implicados en el sindrome de Down mediante terapia genetica. Rev Med Int Sindrome Down 18: 21-28. doi: 10.1016/S2171-9748(14)70049-2
|
| [32] |
Wang X, Zhao Y, Zhang X, et al. (2013) Loss of sorting nexin 27 contributes to excitatory synaptic dysfunction by modulating glutamate receptor recycling in Down syndrome. Nature Med 19: 473-480. doi: 10.1038/nm.3117
|
| [33] |
Rueda N, Flórez J, Martinez-Cue C (2012) Mouse models of Down syndrome as a tool to unravel the causes of mental disabilities. Neural Plast 2012: 584071. doi: 10.1155/2012/584071
|
| [34] |
Aziz N, Guedj F, Pennings J, et al. (2018) Lifespan analysis of brain development, gene expression and behavioral phenotypes in the Ts1Cje, Ts65Dn and Dp(16)1/Yey mouse models of Down syndrome. Dis Mod Mech 11: dmm031013. doi: 10.1242/dmm.031013
|
| [35] |
Yu T, Li Z, Jia Z, et al. (2010) A mouse model of Down syndrome trisomic for all human chromosome 21 syntenic regions. Hum Mol Genet 19: 2780-2791. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq179
|
| [36] |
Xu R, Brawner A, Li S, et al. (2019) OLIG2 drives abnormal neurodevelopmental phenotypes in human iPSC-based organoid and chimeric mouse models of Down syndrome. Cell Stem Cell 24: 908-926.E8. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.04.014
|
| [37] |
Caplan A, Wilson J (2000) The clinical challenges of in utero therapy. Nat Genet 24: 107-108. doi: 10.1038/72747
|
| [38] |
Nakano-Kobayashi A, Awaya T, Kii I, et al. (2017) Prenatal neurogenesis induction therapy normalizes brain structure and function in Down syndrome mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114: 10268-10273. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704143114
|
| [39] |
Hibaoui Y, Grad I, Letourneau A, et al. (2014) Modelling and rescuing neurodevelopmental defect of Down syndrome using pluripotent stem cells from monozygotic twins discordant for trisomy 21. EMBO Mol Med 6: 259-277. doi: 10.1002/emmm.201302848
|
| [40] |
Guedj F, Sebrie C, Rivals I, et al. (2009) Green tea polyphenols rescue brain defects induced by overexpression of DYRK1A. PloS One 4: 1-8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004606
|
| [41] |
Stagni F, Giacomini A, Emili M, et al. (2016) Short- and long-term effects of neonatal pharmacotherapy with epigallocatechin-3-gallate on hippocampal development in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome. Neuroscience 333: 277-301. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.07.031
|
| [42] |
De la Torre R, De Sola S, Pons M, et al. (2014) Epigallocatechin-3-gallate, a DYRK1A inhibitor, rescues cognitive deficits in Down syndrome mouse models and in human. Mol Nutr Food Res 58: 278-288. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201300325
|
| [43] |
De la Torre R, De Sola S, Hernandez G, et al. (2016) Safety and efficacy of cognitive training plus epigallocatechin-3-gallate in young adults with Down's syndrome (TESDAD): A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 15: 801-810. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30034-5
|
| [44] |
Xicota L, Rodriguez J, Langohr K, et al. (2020) Effect of epigallocatechin gallate on the body composition and lipid profile of Down syndrome individuals: Implications for clinical management. Clin Nutr 39: 1292-1300. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.05.028
|
| [45] |
Long R, Drawbaugh M, Davis C, et al. (2019) Usage of and attitudes about green tea extract and epigallocathechin-3-gallate (EGCG) as a therapy in individuals with Down syndrome. Complement Ther Med 45: 234-241. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2019.07.002
|
| [46] |
Sparks A, Truble C, Wang E, et al. (2012) Noninvasive prenatal detection and selective analysis of cell-free DNA obtained from maternal blood: Evaluation for trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206: 319 e1-e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.030
|
| [47] |
Nicolaides K, Syngelaki A, Poon L, et al. (2014) First-trimester contingent screening for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 by biomarkers and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Fetal Diagn Ther 35: 185-192. doi: 10.1159/000356066
|
| [48] |
Sun X, Lu J, Ma X (2019) An efficient method for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomy 13, trisomy 18, and trisomy 21. PloS One 14: e0215368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215368
|
| [49] |
Shan D, Wang H, Khatri P, et al. (2019) The urinary peptidome as a noninvasive biomarker development strategy for prenatal screening of Down's syndrome. OMICS 23: 439-447. doi: 10.1089/omi.2019.0098
|
| [50] |
Reena M, Pisani P, Conversano F, et al. (2013) Sonographic markers for early diagnosis of fetal malformations. World J Radiol 5: 356-371. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i10.356
|
| [51] |
Zbucka-Kretowska M, Niemira M, Paczkowska-Abdulasam M, et al. (2019) Prenatal circulating microRNA signatures of foetal Down syndrome. Sci Rep 9: 1-6. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35876-5
|
| [52] |
Malik S, Vinukonda G, Vose L, et al. (2013) Neurogenesis continues in the third trimester of pregnancy and is suppressed by premature birth. J Neurosci 33: 411-423. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4445-12.2013
|
| [53] |
Gotti S, Caricati E, Panzica G (2011) Alterations of brain circuits in DS murine models. J Chem Neuroanat 42: 317-326. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2011.09.002
|
| [54] |
Chang Q, Gold P (2008) Age-related changes in memory and in acetylcholine functions in the hippocampus in the Ts65Dn mouse, a model of Down syndrome. Neurobiol Learn Mem 89: 167-177. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2007.05.007
|
| [55] |
Kelley C, Ash J, Powers B, et al. (2016) Effects of maternal choline supplementation on the septohippocampal cholinergic system in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome. Curr Alzheimer Res 13: 84-96. doi: 10.2174/1567205012666150921100515
|
| [56] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Sullivan J, et al. (2003) Donepezil for the treatment of language deficits in adults with Down syndrome: a preliminary 24-week open trial. Am Med Genet 116A: 111-116. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.10074
|
| [57] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Doraiswamy P, et al. (2004) Donepezil effects on language in children with Down syndrome. Results of the first 22-week pilot clinical trial. Am J Med Genet 130A: 325-26. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30184
|
| [58] |
Kishnani P, Sommer B, Handen B, et al. (2009) The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of donepezil for the treatment of young adults with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet 149A: 1641-1654. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32953
|
| [59] |
Kishnani P, Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, et al. (2010) Donepezil for treatment of cognitive dysfunction in children with Down syndrome aged 10–17. Am J Med Genet 152A: 3028-3035. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33730
|
| [60] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Crissman B, et al. (2006) Safety and efficacy of rivastigmine in adolescents with Down syndrome: A preliminary 20-week, open-label study. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 16: 755-765. doi: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.755
|
| [61] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Crissman B, et al. (2010) Safety and efficacy of rivastigmine in adolescents with Down syndrome: Long-term follow-up. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 20: 517-520. doi: 10.1089/cap.2009.0099
|
| [62] | Gardiner K (2015) Pharmacological approaches to improving cognitive function in Down syndrome: current status and considerations. Drug Des Devel Ther 9: 103-125. |
| [63] |
Costa A, Scott-McKean J, Stasko M (2008) Acute injections of the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine rescue performance deficits of the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome on a fear conditioning test. Neuropsychopharmacology 33: 1624-1632. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301535
|
| [64] |
Capone G (2011) Pharmacotherapy for children with Down syndrome. Neurocognitive Rehabilitation of Down Syndrome Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96-116. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511919299.008
|
| [65] |
Fernandez F, Morishita W, Zuniga E, et al. (2007) Pharmacotherapy for cognitive impairment in a mouse model of Down syndrome. Nat Neurosci 10: 411-413. doi: 10.1038/nn1860
|
| [66] |
Liogier d'Ardhuy X, Edgin J, Bouis C, et al. (2015) Assessment of cognitive scales to examine memory, executive function and language in individuals with Down syndrome: Implications of a 6-month observational study. Front Behav Neurosci 9: 300. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00300
|
| [67] |
Guidi S, Stagni F, Bianchi P, et al. (2014) Prenatal pharmacotherapy rescues brain development in a Down's syndrome mouse model. Brain 137: 380-401. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt340
|
| [68] |
Lockrow J, Prakasam A, Huang P, et al. (2009) Cholinergic degeneration and memory loss delayed by vitamin E in a Down syndrome mouse model. Exp Neurol 216: 278-289. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.11.021
|
| [69] |
Sano M, Aisen P, Andrews H, et al. (2016) Vitamin E in aging persons with Down syndrome: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Neurology 86: 2071-2076. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002714
|
| [70] |
Lobaugh N, Karaskov V, Rombough V, et al. (2001) Piracetam therapy does not enhance cognitive functioning in children with Down syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155: 442-448. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.155.4.442
|
| [71] |
Plane J, Chen Y, Pleasure D, et al. (2010) Prospects for minocycline protection. Arch Neurol 67: 1442-1448. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.191
|
| [72] | Chen C, Jiang P, Xue H, et al. (2014) Role of astroglia in Down's syndrome revealed by patient-derived human-induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Commun 5: 1-18. |
| [73] |
Brose R, Svonenko A, Devenney B, et al. (2019) Hydroxyurea improves spatial memory and cognitive plasticity in mice and has a mild effect on these parameters in a Down syndrome mouse model. Front Aging Neurosci 11: 96. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00096
|
| [74] | Prasher V (2005) Alzheimer and Dementia in Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disabilities Abingdon: Radcliffe. |
| [75] |
Doran E, Keator D, Head E, et al. (2017) Down syndrome, partial trisomy, and absence of Alzheimer's disease: The role of APP. J Alzheimers Dis 56: 459-470. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160836
|
| [76] |
O'Brien R, Wong P (2011) Amyloid precursor protein processing and Alzheimer's disease. Ann Rev Neurosci 34: 185-204. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113613
|
| [77] |
Rafii M, Lukic A, Andrews R, et al. (2017) PET imaging of Tau pathology and relationship to amyloid, longitudinal MRI, and cognitive change in Down syndrome: Results from the Down Syndrome Biomarker Initiative (DSBI). J Alzheimers Dis 60: 439-450. doi: 10.3233/JAD-170390
|
| [78] |
Rafii M (2018) Tau PET for staging of Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Dev Neurobiol 79: 711-715. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22658
|
| [79] | Vogels O (1990) The Nucleus Basalis of Meynert Complex and Adjacent Structures in Normal Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Nijmegen: Press of the Radbouw University. |
| [80] |
King A, Liu L, Chang R, et al. (2015) Nucleus basalis of Meynert revisited: anatomy, history and differential involvement in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Acta Neuropathol 129: 527-40. doi: 10.1007/s00401-015-1392-5
|
| [81] | Zhou J, Bingquian L (2013) Alzheimer's disease and prion protein. Intractable Rare Dis Res 2: 35-44. |
| [82] |
Novak P, Prcina M, Kontseva E (2011) Tauons and prions: Infamous cousins? Alzheimer Dis 26: 413-430. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2011-110194
|
| [83] |
Hsiung G, Sadovnick A (2007) Genetics and dementia: Risk factors, diagnosis, and management. Alzheimer Dement 3: 418-427. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.07.010
|
| [84] |
Schipper H (2011) Apolipoprotein E: implications for AD neurobiology, epidemiology and risk assessment. Neurobiol Aging 32: 77-90. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.04.021
|
| [85] |
Raha-Chowdhury R, Henderson J, Raha A, et al. (2019) Choroid plexus acts as gatekeeper for TREM2, abnoremal accumulation of ApoE, and fibrillary Tau in Alzheimer's disease and in Down syndrome dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 69: 91-101. doi: 10.3233/JAD-181179
|
| [86] |
Firth N, Startin C, Fisher E, et al. (2018) Aging related cognitive changes associated with Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 20: 741-751. doi: 10.1002/acn3.571
|
| [87] |
Arboleda-Velasquez J, Lopera F, O'Hare M, et al. (2019) Resistance to autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease in an APOE3 Christchurch homozygote: A case report. Nat Med 25: 1680-1683. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0611-3
|
| [88] |
Rogaeva E, Meng Y, Lee J, et al. (2007) The neuronal sortilin-related receptor SORL1 is genetically associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 39: 168-177. doi: 10.1038/ng1943
|
| [89] |
Wallon D, Rousseau S, Rovelet-Lecrux A, et al. (2012) The French series of autosomal dominant early onset Alzheimer's disease cases: mutation spectrum and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. J Alzheimers Dis 30: 847-856. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2012-120172
|
| [90] |
Hochino T, Kamino K, Matsumoto M (2002) Gene dose effect of the APOE-epsilon 4 allele on plasma HDL cholesterol level in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 23: 41-45. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(01)00252-4
|
| [91] | Malegiannaki A, Katsarou D, Liolios A, et al. (2019) Ageing and Down syndrome: Neurocognitive characteristics and pharmacological treatment. Hell J Nucl Med 22: 123-132. |
| [92] |
Sanchez M, Heyn S, Das D, et al. (2012) Neurobiological elements of cognitive dysfunction in Down syndrome: Exploring the role of APP. Biol Psychiatry 71: 403-409. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.08.016
|
| [93] |
Boada R, Hutaff-Lee C, Schrader A, et al. (2012) Antagonism of NMDA receptors as a potential treatment for Down syndrome: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Transl Psychiatry 2: e141. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.66
|
| [94] |
Schenk D, Barbour R, Dunn W, et al. (1999) Immunization with amyloid-beta attenuates Alzheimer-disease-like pathology in the PDAPP mouse. Nature 400: 173-177. doi: 10.1038/22124
|
| [95] |
Matsunaga S, Kishi T, Annes P, et al. (2015) Lithium as a treatment for Alzheiner's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis 48: 403-410. doi: 10.3233/JAD-150437
|
| [96] | Rasore Quartino A (2012) Le terapie attuali per le persone con sindrome di Down: Lo stato del arte. Il Presente Incontra il Futuro. La Sindrome di Down Oggi e Domani Pieve di Cadore: Tiziano, 53-80. |
| [97] |
Sabbagh M (2009) Drug development for Alzheimer's disease: Where are we now and where are we headed? Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 7: 167-185. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2009.06.003
|
| [98] |
Garcia-Cerro S, Rueda N, Vidal L, et al. (2017) Normalizing the gene dosage of DYRK1A in a mouse model of Down syndrome rescues several Alzheimer's disease phenotypes. Neurobiol Dis 106: 76-88. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2017.06.010
|
| [99] |
Kawakubo T, Mori R, Shirotani N, et al. (2017) Neprilysin is suppressed by dual-specificity tyrosine-phosphorylation regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) in Down syndrome derived fibroblasts. Biol Pharma Bull 40: 327-333. doi: 10.1248/bpb.b16-00825
|
| [100] |
Lee N, Chien Y, Hwu W (2017) A review of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Neurol Ther 6: 69-81. doi: 10.1007/s40120-017-0071-y
|
| [101] |
Hartley S, Handen B, Devenny D, et al. (2017) Cognitive decline and brain amyloid-bêta accumulation across 3 years in adults with Down syndrome. Neurobiol Aging 58: 68-76. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.019
|
| [102] |
Alhajraf F, Ness D, Hye A, et al. (2019) Plasma amyloid and tau as dementia biomarkers in Down syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Neurobiol 79: 684-698. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22715
|
| [103] |
Bik-Multanowsky M, Pietrzyk J, Midro A (2015) MTRNRL12: A candidate blood marker of early Alzheimer's disease-like dementia in adults with Down syndrome. J Alzheimers Dis 46: 145-150. doi: 10.3233/JAD-143030
|
| [104] |
Shinomoto M, Kasai T, Tatebe H, et al. (2019) Plasma neurofilament light chain: A potential prognostic biomarker of dementia in adult Down syndrome patients. PloS One 14: e0211575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211575
|
| [105] |
Rafii M, Donohue M, Matthews D, et al. (2019) Plasma neurofilament light and Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in Down syndrome: Results from the Down Syndrome Biomarker Initiative (DSBI). J Alzheimers Dis 70: 131-138. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190322
|
| [106] |
Hamlett E, Ledreux A, Potter H, et al. (2018) Exosomal biomarkers in Down syndrome and Alzheimer's disease. Free Radical Biol Medicine 114: 110-121. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.08.028
|
| [107] |
Motta C, Di Lorenzo F, Ponzo V, et al. (2017) Transcranial magnetic stimulation predicts cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 89: 1237-1242. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-317879
|
| [108] |
Nawa N, Hirata K, Kawatani K, et al. (2019) Elimination of protein aggregates prevents premature senescence in human trisomy 21 fibroblasts. PloS One 14: e0219592. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219592
|
| [109] | Li JG, Chiu J, Praticò D (2019) Full recovery of Alzheimer's disease phenotype by gain of function of vacuolar protein sorting 35. Mol Psychiatry 1-11. |
| [110] | Vagnozzi A, Li JG, Chiu J, et al. (2019) VPS35 regulates tau phosphorylation and neuropathology in taupathy. Mol Psychiatry 1-14. |
| 1. | Estefanía Álvarez-Castillo, Manuel Felix, Carlos Bengoechea, Antonio Guerrero, Proteins from Agri-Food Industrial Biowastes or Co-Products and Their Applications as Green Materials, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 981, 10.3390/foods10050981 | |
| 2. | Rabi Ibrahim Saleh, Mirae Kim, Seung Yeop Baek, Chaenyung Cha, Chitosan-functionalized silica nanoparticles as a multifunctional coating material for improved water repellency, antimicrobial activity and mechanical strength of degradable bioplastics, 2022, 29, 0969-0239, 7691, 10.1007/s10570-022-04745-w | |
| 3. | Anna Czajka, Radosław Bulski, Anna Iuliano, Andrzej Plichta, Kamila Mizera, Joanna Ryszkowska, Grafted Lactic Acid Oligomers on Lignocellulosic Filler towards Biocomposites, 2022, 15, 1996-1944, 314, 10.3390/ma15010314 | |
| 4. | I Kamaruddin, A Dirpan, F Bastian, The novel trend of bacterial cellulose as biodegradable and oxygen scavenging films for food packaging application : An integrative review, 2021, 807, 1755-1307, 022066, 10.1088/1755-1315/807/2/022066 | |
| 5. | Ika Zuwanna, Medyan Riza, Sri Aprilia, Yanna Syamsuddin, Biocomposite based on whey protein isolate with the addition silica from rice husk ash, 2022, 63, 22147853, S147, 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.056 | |
| 6. | Syed Riaz Ahmed, Fiaz Rasul, Aqsa Ijaz, Zunaira Anwar, Zarsha Naureen, Anam Riaz, Ijaz Rasul, 2022, 9781119904908, 789, 10.1002/9781119905301.ch29 | |
| 7. | Xianhui Zhao, Ying Wang, Xiaowen Chen, Xinbin Yu, Wei Li, Shuyang Zhang, Xianzhi Meng, Zhi-Min Zhao, Tao Dong, Alexander Anderson, Antony Aiyedun, Yanfei Li, Erin Webb, Zili Wu, Vlastimil Kunc, Arthur Ragauskas, Soydan Ozcan, Hongli Zhu, Sustainable bioplastics derived from renewable natural resources for food packaging, 2023, 6, 25902385, 97, 10.1016/j.matt.2022.11.006 | |
| 8. | Roger Arthur Sheldon, The E factor at 30: a passion for pollution prevention, 2023, 25, 1463-9262, 1704, 10.1039/D2GC04747K | |
| 9. | Liqaa Hamid, Irene Samy, 2022, Chapter 8, 978-1-80355-075-6, 10.5772/intechopen.100907 | |
| 10. | Aina Aqila Arman Alim, Siti Salwa Mohammad Shirajuddin, Farah Hannan Anuar, Shahid Hussain, A Review of Nonbiodegradable and Biodegradable Composites for Food Packaging Application, 2022, 2022, 2090-9071, 1, 10.1155/2022/7670819 | |
| 11. | Tarakeshwar Senapati, Sukhendu Dey, Apurba Ratan Ghosh, Palas Samanta, 2022, Chapter 89-1, 978-981-16-4921-9, 1, 10.1007/978-981-16-4921-9_89-1 | |
| 12. | Abel Saka, Kumaran Subramanian, JuleLeta Tesfaye, Lamessa Gudata, N. Nagaprasad, Krishnaraj Ramaswamy, 2023, Chapter 21, 978-981-19-5040-7, 401, 10.1007/978-981-19-5041-4_21 | |
| 13. | Utkarsh Chadha, Preetam Bhardwaj, Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj, Kaviya Arasu, S. Praveena, A. Pavan, Mayank Khanna, Prabhpreet Singh, Shalu Singh, Arghya Chakravorty, Badrish Badoni, Murali Banavoth, Prashant Sonar, Velmurugan Paramasivam, José Agustín Tapia Hernández, Current Trends and Future Perspectives of Nanomaterials in Food Packaging Application, 2022, 2022, 1687-4129, 1, 10.1155/2022/2745416 | |
| 14. | Vasanti Suvarna, Arya Nair, Rashmi Mallya, Tabassum Khan, Abdelwahab Omri, Antimicrobial Nanomaterials for Food Packaging, 2022, 11, 2079-6382, 729, 10.3390/antibiotics11060729 | |
| 15. | Subhankar Das, Manjula Ishwara Kalyani, From trash to treasure: review on upcycling of fruit and vegetable wastes into starch based bioplastics, 2022, 1082-6068, 1, 10.1080/10826068.2022.2158470 | |
| 16. | Naghmeh Arabzadeh, Elaheh Kowsari, Seeram Ramakrishnab, 2022, Chapter 83-1, 978-981-16-4921-9, 1, 10.1007/978-981-16-4921-9_83-1 | |
| 17. | Victor Manuel Perez-Puyana, Mercedes Jiménez-Rosado, Antonio Guerrero, Inmaculada Martínez, Alberto Romero, 2023, 9780323905459, 313, 10.1016/B978-0-323-90545-9.00011-2 | |
| 18. | Jaegyeong Lee, Dongil Kim, Hyosun Lee, Saira Nayab, Ji Hoon Han, Effect of initiator on the catalytic performance of zinc(II) complexes supported by aminomethylquinoline and aminomethylpyridine derived ligands in stereoselective ring opening polymerization of rac-lactide, 2022, 216, 02775387, 115696, 10.1016/j.poly.2022.115696 | |
| 19. | Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś, Janusz Krupanek, Mariusz Kalisz, Jonathan Smith, Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 5346, 10.3390/su14095346 | |
| 20. | Anupam Agarwal, Bushra Shaida, Mayuri Rastogi, Nakshatra Bahadur Singh, Food Packaging Materials with Special Reference to Biopolymers-Properties and Applications, 2023, 6, 2522-5758, 117, 10.1007/s42250-022-00446-w | |
| 21. | Renato Poli Mari, Jéssica Jenifer Sornas, Andrea C. K. Bierhalz, Polysaccharide-based films reinforced with nanocellulose isolated from raw and bleached cotton, 2023, 30, 0969-0239, 1657, 10.1007/s10570-022-04980-1 | |
| 22. | Carolina Caicedo, Alma Berenice Jasso‐Salcedo, Lluvia de Abril Alexandra Soriano‐Melgar, Claudio Alonso Díaz‐Cruz, Enrique Javier Jiménez‐Regalado, Rocio Yaneli Aguirre‐Loredo, 2023, 9781119160137, 383, 10.1002/9781119160182.ch18 | |
| 23. | Célia Boukoufi, Ariane Boudier, Philippe Maincent, Jean Vigneron, Igor Clarot, Food-inspired innovations to improve the stability of active pharmaceutical ingredients, 2022, 623, 03785173, 121881, 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121881 | |
| 24. | Fitriani Fitriani, Sri Aprilia, Nasrul Arahman, Muhammad Roil Bilad, Hazwani Suhaimi, Nurul Huda, Properties of Biocomposite Film Based on Whey Protein Isolate Filled with Nanocrystalline Cellulose from Pineapple Crown Leaf, 2021, 13, 2073-4360, 4278, 10.3390/polym13244278 | |
| 25. | Ana Arias, Gumersindo Feijoo, Maria Teresa Moreira, Technological feasibility and environmental assessment of polylactic acid-nisin-based active packaging, 2022, 33, 22149937, e00460, 10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00460 | |
| 26. | Roger A. Sheldon, Dean Brady, Green Chemistry, Biocatalysis, and the Chemical Industry of the Future, 2022, 15, 1864-5631, 10.1002/cssc.202102628 | |
| 27. | Lismet Lazo, Gisela M. Melo, María Luján Auad, Mauricio Filippa, Martin A. Masuelli, Synthesis and Characterization of Chanar Gum Films, 2022, 6, 2504-5377, 10, 10.3390/colloids6010010 | |
| 28. | Yuanze Sun, Xinfei Li, Xiaomin Li, Jie Wang, Deciphering the Fingerprint of Dissolved Organic Matter in the Soil Amended with Biodegradable and Conventional Microplastics Based on Optical and Molecular Signatures, 2022, 56, 0013-936X, 15746, 10.1021/acs.est.2c06258 | |
| 29. | Edina Rusen, Gabriela Isopencu, Gabriela Toader, Aurel Diacon, Adrian Dinescu, Alexandra Mocanu, Improved degradability and mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose grafted with PEG derivatives, 2023, 0969-0239, 10.1007/s10570-023-05163-2 | |
| 30. | Petra Balaban, Adis Puška, INFLUENCE OF PACKAGING PROCESS ON MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FLEXIBLE PACKAGING MATERIALS, 2022, 1, 28129709, 65, 10.46793/adeletters.2022.1.2.5 | |
| 31. | Andrés Leobardo Puebla-Duarte, Irela Santos-Sauceda, Francisco Rodríguez-Félix, Rey David Iturralde-García, Daniel Fernández-Quiroz, Ingrid Daniela Pérez-Cabral, Carmen Lizette Del-Toro-Sánchez, Active and Intelligent Packaging: A Review of the Possible Application of Cyclodextrins in Food Storage and Safety Indicators, 2023, 15, 2073-4360, 4317, 10.3390/polym15214317 | |
| 32. | Sweta Sinha, An overview of biopolymer-derived packaging material, 2024, 15, 2041-2479, 193, 10.1177/20412479241226884 | |
| 33. | Adegoke Adetunji, Mariana Erasmus, Green Synthesis of Bioplastics from Microalgae: A State-of-the-Art Review, 2024, 16, 2073-4360, 1322, 10.3390/polym16101322 | |
| 34. | Uwei Kong, Nurul Fazita Mohammad Rawi, Guan Seng Tay, The Potential Applications of Reinforced Bioplastics in Various Industries: A Review, 2023, 15, 2073-4360, 2399, 10.3390/polym15102399 | |
| 35. | E. Y. Melesse, Y. A. Filinskaya, I. A. Kirsh, Ali Y. Alkhair, O. A. Bannikova, Food packaging Bio-based plastics: Properties, Renewable Biomass resources, Synthesis, and Applications, 2023, 85, 2310-1202, 199, 10.20914/2310-1202-2023-3-199-212 | |
| 36. | Ronan Farrell, Yvonne J. Cortese, Declan M. Devine, Noel Gately, Margarita Rueda, Lorena Rodriguez, Romina Pezzoli, The function and properties of common food packaging materials and their suitability for reusable packaging: The transition from a linear to circular economy, 2024, 9, 26660865, 100429, 10.1016/j.crgsc.2024.100429 | |
| 37. | Worraphol Nansu, Gareth Ross, Sukunya Ross, Nungruthai Suphrom, Sararat Mahasaranon, Developments of pH responsive biodegradable monitoring film based on poly(vinyl alcohol) incorporated with Sappan heartwood extract for food packaging applications, 2023, 10, 2372-0484, 465, 10.3934/matersci.2023026 | |
| 38. | Mukhtar Iderawumi Abdulraheem, Gholamreza Abdi, Nafeesa Farooq Khan, Abdul Wahab, Kasahun Gudeta, Chandan Singh, Oluwadamilola Oluwatoyin Hazzan, 2024, chapter 9, 9798369310946, 245, 10.4018/979-8-3693-1094-6.ch009 | |
| 39. | Farah Ayuni Mohd Hatta, Qurratu Aini Mat Ali, Mohd Izhar Ariff Mohd Kashim, Rashidi Othman, Sahilah Abd Mutalib, Nurul Hafizah Mohd Nor, Recent Advances in Halal Bioactive Materials for Intelligent Food Packaging Indicator, 2023, 12, 2304-8158, 2387, 10.3390/foods12122387 | |
| 40. | Mangal Mangal, Chebrolu Venkateswara Rao, Tamal Banerjee, Bioplastic: an eco‐friendly alternative to non‐biodegradable plastic, 2023, 72, 0959-8103, 984, 10.1002/pi.6555 | |
| 41. | Marzieh Baneshi, Alberta N.A. Aryee, Marcia English, Martin Mkandawire, Designing Plant-Based Smart Food Packaging Solutions for Prolonging Consumable Life of Perishable Foods, 2024, 5, 2772753X, 100769, 10.1016/j.focha.2024.100769 | |
| 42. | Daofen Huang, Haoran Dong, Xing Li, Long Li, Junmin Deng, Junyang Xiao, Jie Dong, Shuangjie Xiao, Transformation of dissolved organic matter leached from biodegradable and conventional microplastics under UV/chlorine treatment and the subsequent effect on contaminant removal, 2024, 480, 03043894, 135994, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135994 | |
| 43. | Jie Wang, Minghao Jia, Long Zhang, Xiaona Li, Xiaokai Zhang, Zhenyu Wang, Biodegradable microplastics pose greater risks than conventional microplastics to soil properties, microbial community and plant growth, especially under flooded conditions, 2024, 931, 00489697, 172949, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172949 | |
| 44. | Rui M.S. Cruz, Irene Albertos, Janira Romero, Sofia Agriopoulou, Theodoros Varzakas, 2024, 108, 9780443293924, 135, 10.1016/bs.afnr.2023.10.003 | |
| 45. | Emiru Melesse, Y. A. Filinskaya, Ali Alkhair, O. A. Bannikova, Marjen Eyeberdiyeva, Overall Review the Current Tend and Difficulties of Antimicrobial compounds in Composite Food Packaging Applications, 2022, 84, 2310-1202, 204, 10.20914/2310-1202-2022-3-204-213 | |
| 46. | Sunita Adak, Ramalingam Kayalvizhi, Moumita Bishai, Samuel Jacob, Debajyoti Kundu, Advancements in microbial production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) from wastes for sustainable active food packaging: An eclectic review, 2024, 60, 18788181, 103288, 10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103288 | |
| 47. | Usman Lawal Usman, Sushmita Banerjee, Nakshatra Bahadur Singh, 2024, Chapter 116-1, 978-981-99-3516-1, 1, 10.1007/978-981-99-3516-1_116-1 | |
| 48. | Andreas Panou, Ioannis Karabagias, Biodegradable Packaging Materials for Foods Preservation: Sources, Advantages, Limitations, and Future Perspectives, 2023, 13, 2079-6412, 1176, 10.3390/coatings13071176 | |
| 49. | Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Fatma Abd El Gawad, Elsayed A.E. Ali, Sangeetha Karunanithi, Puput Yugiani, Prem Prakash Srivastav, Nanotechnology: Current applications and future scope in food packaging systems, 2024, 13, 27722759, 100131, 10.1016/j.meafoo.2023.100131 | |
| 50. | Erhan Ada, Yigit Kazancoglu, Çisem Lafcı, Banu Y. Ekren, Cansu Çimitay Çelik, Identifying the Drivers of Circular Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review for the Current State of the Food Supply Chain to Be Sustainable and Circular, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 11703, 10.3390/su151511703 | |
| 51. | Emine Gizem Acar, Buse Sezer, Gurbuz Gunes, 2024, 9780128035818, 10.1016/B978-0-323-95486-0.00052-1 | |
| 52. | S Priyanka, Karthick Raja Namasivayam S, Arvind Bharani R. S., Arun John, Biocompatible green technology principles for the fabrication of food packaging material with noteworthy mechanical and antimicrobial properties-- A sustainable developmental goal towards the effective, safe food preservation strategy, 2023, 336, 00456535, 139240, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139240 | |
| 53. | Anna Pakulska, Edyta Bartosiewicz, Sabina Galus, The Potential of Apple and Blackcurrant Pomace Powders as the Components of Pectin Packaging Films, 2023, 13, 2079-6412, 1409, 10.3390/coatings13081409 | |
| 54. | Fath Al, Ghendis Ayu, Gina Hasibuan, Nisaul Dalimunthe, Vikram Alexander, The effect of glycerol and sago starch addition on the characteristics of bioplastic based on orange peel pectin, 2024, 30, 1451-9372, 359, 10.2298/CICEQ231214007A | |
| 55. | Asma M. Tatagar, Javed I. Moodi, Gulamnabi L. Vanti, Bahubali Murgunde, Development of sustainable ternary bionanocomposite film reinforced with nanocellulose and nanoclay for microbial efficacy, 2024, 59, 0022-2461, 6334, 10.1007/s10853-024-09568-7 | |
| 56. | Patrícia S. Ferreira, Sónia M. Ribeiro, Rita Pontes, João Nunes, Production methods and applications of bioactive polylactic acid: a review, 2024, 22, 1610-3653, 1831, 10.1007/s10311-024-01729-z | |
| 57. | Paula Camarena-Bononad, Pedro A. V. Freitas, Chelo González-Martínez, Amparo Chiralt, Maria Vargas, Influence of the Purification Degree of Cellulose from Posidonia oceanica on the Properties of Cellulose-PLA Composites, 2024, 5, 2673-4176, 807, 10.3390/polysaccharides5040050 | |
| 58. | Maria G. Bauer, Fabio Henkel, Ufuk Gürer, Oliver Lieleg, Bio‐Based and Degradable Food Packaging Materials: Where Are They?, 2024, 2196-7350, 10.1002/admi.202400645 | |
| 59. | Naghmeh Arabzadeh, Elaheh Kowsari, Seeram Ramakrishnab, 2025, Chapter 83, 978-981-97-4617-0, 151, 10.1007/978-981-97-4618-7_83 | |
| 60. | Tarakeshwar Senapati, Sukhendu Dey, Apurba Ratan Ghosh, Palas Samanta, 2025, Chapter 89, 978-981-97-4617-0, 339, 10.1007/978-981-97-4618-7_89 | |
| 61. | Farhang Hameed Awlqadr, Ammar B. Altemimi, Qausar Hamed AlKaisy, Syamand Ahmed Qadir, Aryan Mahmood Faraj, Tablo Azad H.Slih, Rawaa H. Tlay, Tarek Gamal Mohamed Abd El-Maksoud, Franscesco Cacciola, Advancements in Nanotechnology for Enhanced Food Safety and Hygiene: Pathogen Detection, Smart Packaging, and Preservation Applications, 2024, 9, 2411-7706, 95, 10.24017/science.2024.2.8 | |
| 62. | Deepti Katiyar, Rajnandani Singh, Shreya Dixit, Debaprasad Ghosh, Rashmi Saxena Pal, 2025, Chapter 6, 978-3-031-78556-6, 145, 10.1007/978-3-031-78557-3_6 | |
| 63. | A. Anli Dino, G. Kishore, Samuel Lalthazuala Rokhum, Gurunathan Baskar, Bioplastic production using waste macroalgal biomass: A holistic review on challenges, prospects, economic viability and sustainability analysis, 2025, 13, 22133437, 116108, 10.1016/j.jece.2025.116108 | |
| 64. | Paula Camarena-Bononad, Pedro A. V. Freitas, Amparo Chiralt, Maria Vargas, Use of Cellulose Fibres from Posidonia oceanica to Obtain Chitosan Biocomposites and Poly(lactic Acid) Laminates, 2025, 6, 2673-4176, 27, 10.3390/polysaccharides6020027 |
Jean A. Rondal. Down syndrome: A curative prospect?[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(2): 168-193. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020012
| Type of materials | Pros | Cons | References |
| Glass | Recyclable Inert to a variety of foods |
Heavy and fragile Expensive to transport |
[25,26] |
| Metal | Long shelf life Resistant to heat |
Expensive May be corroded |
[27,28] |
| Plastic | Difficult to break Can be shaped into various forms |
Poor heat resistance Nonbiodegradable |
[25,29] |
| Wood | Sturdy Easy to repair |
Only used as pallets and crates | [1] |
| Paper/paperboard | Easily printable surfaces Low cost Lightweight |
Weak barrier against water Used for dry products only |
[4,27] |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Types of bioplastic | Properties | Examples | References |
| Polymers from biomass | Compostable | Starch-based, cellulose-based, protein-based | [50,51] |
| Polymers from bio-derived monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | PLA, bio-based PE, bio-based PET, bio-based PP | [52,53,54,55] |
| Polymers from microbial fermentation | Biodegradable | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | [56] |
| Polymers from both bio-derived monomers and petroleum-based monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), Pro-oxidant Additive Containing (PAC) plastic | [53,57] |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Type of materials | Pros | Cons | References |
| Glass | Recyclable Inert to a variety of foods |
Heavy and fragile Expensive to transport |
[25,26] |
| Metal | Long shelf life Resistant to heat |
Expensive May be corroded |
[27,28] |
| Plastic | Difficult to break Can be shaped into various forms |
Poor heat resistance Nonbiodegradable |
[25,29] |
| Wood | Sturdy Easy to repair |
Only used as pallets and crates | [1] |
| Paper/paperboard | Easily printable surfaces Low cost Lightweight |
Weak barrier against water Used for dry products only |
[4,27] |
| Types of bioplastic | Properties | Examples | References |
| Polymers from biomass | Compostable | Starch-based, cellulose-based, protein-based | [50,51] |
| Polymers from bio-derived monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | PLA, bio-based PE, bio-based PET, bio-based PP | [52,53,54,55] |
| Polymers from microbial fermentation | Biodegradable | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | [56] |
| Polymers from both bio-derived monomers and petroleum-based monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), Pro-oxidant Additive Containing (PAC) plastic | [53,57] |
