Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News Feature
  • Published:

The curious case of clioquinol

Nature Medicine volume 15, pages 356–359 (2009)Cite this article

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 01 May 2009

This article has been updated

An indigestion drug blamed for a debilitating illness that affected thousands of people in the 1950s has been resurrected as a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. But not everyone is cheering for the drug, clioquinol, to make a comeback. Lauren Cahoon reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Change history

  • 07 May 2009

    In the version of this article initially published, Ashley Bush of the Mental Health Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia is cited as the sole originator of the metals theory for Alzheimer’s disease, and Prana Biotechnology is described as being founded in Melbourne. The theory and Prana Biotechnology were jointly developed by Bush and Rudolph Tanzi of Massachusetts General Hospital, with the help of Rob Moir, and in collaboration with Colin Masters of the University of Melbourne. Additionally, it was Michel Xilinas who recognized the chelating properties of clioquinol. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. Schaumburg, H. Experimental and Clinical Neurotoxicology (ed. Spencer, P.) Ch. 27, 395–406 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cherny, R.A. et al. Neuron 30, 665–676 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ritchie, C.W. Arch. Neurol. 60, 1685–1691 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nakae, K., Yamamoto, S., Shigematsu, I. & Kono R. Lancet 301, 171–173 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shigematsu, I., Yanagawa, H., Yamamoto, S. & Nakae, K. Jpn. J. Med. Sci. Biol. 28, 23–33 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lannfelt, L. et al. Lancet Neurol. 7, 779–786 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen, T., Hamby, A. & Massa, S.M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 11840–11845 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaur, D. et al. Neuron 37, 899–909 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang, Y. et al. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 314–323 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ding, W.Q. et al. Cancer Res. 65, 3389–3395 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lauren Cahoon is a science writer based in Ithaca, New York.,

    Lauren Cahoon

Authors
  1. Lauren Cahoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cahoon, L. The curious case of clioquinol. Nat Med 15, 356–359 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0409-356

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0409-356

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing