People with high socioeconomic status jobs are believed to be better off in life.
New research published last week by the Centre for Disease Control, however, suggests that this may not be the case with regards to one’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
In today’s post we will review the research and discuss what it means for our understanding of Parkinson’s disease.
The impact of socioeconomic status. Source: Medicalxpress
In 2013, a group of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found a rather astonishing but very interesting association:
Children from lower socioeconomic status have shorter telomeres as adults.
Yeah, wow, strange… sorry, but what are telomeres?
Do you remember how all of your DNA is wound up tightly into 23 pairs of chromosomes? Well, telomeres are at the very ends of each of those chromosomes. They are literally the cap on each end. The name is derived from the Greek words ‘telos‘ meaning “end”, and ‘merοs‘ meaning “part”.
Telomeres are regions of repetitive nucleotide sequences (think the As, Gs, Ts, & Cs that make up your DNA) at each end of a chromosome. Their purpose seems to involve protecting the end of each chromosome from deteriorating or fusing with neighbouring chromosomes. Researchers also use their length is a marker of ageing because every time a cell divides, the telomeres on each chromosome gradually get shorter.
Please excuse our use of UK slang in the title of this post, but a group of Australian researchers have recently discovered something really interesting about Parkinson’s disease.
And being a patriotic kiwi, it takes something REALLY interesting for me to even acknowledge that other South Pacific nation. This new finding, however, could be big.
In today’s post, we will review new research dealing with a protein called SOD1, and discuss what it could mean for the Parkinson’s community.
The number of dark pigmented dopamine cells in the substantia nigra are reduced in the Parkinson’s disease brain (right). Source: Adaptd from Memorangapp
Every Parkinson’s-associated website and every Parkinson’s disease researchers will tell you exactly the same thing when describing the two cardinal features in the brain of a person who died with Parkinson’s disease:
- The loss of certain types of cells (such as the dopamine producing cells of the substantia nigra region of the brain – see the image above)
- The clustering (or aggregation) of a protein called Alpha synuclein in tightly packed, circular deposits, called Lewy bodies (see image below).
A Lewy body inside a cell. Source: Adapted from Neuropathology-web
The clustered alpha synuclein protein, however, is not limited to just the Lewy bodies. In the affected areas of the brain, aggregated alpha synuclein can be seen in the branches of cells – see the image below where alpha synuclein has been stained brown on a section of brain from a person with Parkinson’s disease.
Examples of Lewy neurites (indicated by arrows). Source: Wikimedia
Now, one of the problems with our understanding of Parkinson’s disease is disparity between the widespread presence of clustered alpha synuclein and very selective pattern of cell loss. Alpha synuclein aggregation can be seen distributed widely around the affected areas of the brain, but the cell loss will be limited to specific populations of cells.
If the disease is killing a particular population of cells, why is alpha synuclein clustering so wide spread?
So why is there a difference?
We don’t know.
It could be that the cells that die have a lower threshold for alpha synuclein toxicity (we discussed this is a previous post – click here?).
But this question regarding the difference between these two features has left many researchers wondering if there may be some other protein or agent that is actually killing off the cells and then disappearing quickly, leaving poor old alpha synuclein looking rather guilty.
Poor little Mr “A Synuclein” got the blame, but his older brother actually did it! Source: Youtube
And this is a very serious discussion point.
This year of 2017 represents the 200th anniversary of James Parkinson’s first description of Parkinson’s disease, but it also represents the 20th anniversary since the association between alpha synuclein and PD was first established. We have produced almost 7,000 research reports on the topic of alpha synuclein and PD during that time, and we currently have ongoing clinical trials targetting alpha synuclein.
But what if our basic premise – that alpha synuclein is the bad guy – is actually wrong?
Is there any evidence to suggest this?
We are just speculating here, but yes there is.
For example, in a study of 904 brains, alpha synuclein deposits were observed in 11.3% of the brains (or 106 cases), but of those cases only 32 had been diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disorder (Click here to read more on this). The remaining 74 cases had demonstrated none of the clinical features of Parkinson’s disease.
So what else could be causing the cell death?
Well, this week some scientists from sunny Sydney (Australia) reported a protein that could fit the bill.
Sydney. Source: Vagabond
The interesting part of their finding is that the protein is also associated with another neurodegenerative condition: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Remind me again, what is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?
Parkinson’s disease and Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are the second and third most common adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions (respectively) after Alzheimer’s disease. We recently discussed ALS in a previous post (Click here to read that post).
ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease and motor neuron disease, is a neurodegenerative condition in which the neurons that control voluntary muscle movement die. The condition affects 2 people in every 100,000 each year, and those individuals have an average survival time of two to four years.
You may have heard of ALS due to it’s association with the internet ‘Ice bucket challenge‘ craze that went viral in 2014-15.
The Ice bucket challenge. Source: Forbes
What is the protein associated with ALS?
In 1993, scientists discovered that mutations in the gene called SOD1 were associated with familial forms of ALS (Click here to read more about this). We now know that mutations in the SOD1 gene are associated with around 20% of familial cases of ALS and 5% of sporadic ALS.
The SOD1 gene produces an enzyme called Cu-Zn superoxide dismutase.
This enzyme is a very powerful antioxidant that protects the body from damage caused by toxic free radical generated in the mitochondria.
SOD1 protein structure. Source: Wikipedia
One important note here regarding ALS: the genetic mutations in the SOD1 gene do not cause ALS by affecting SOD1’s antioxidant properties (Click here to read more about this). Rather, researchers believe that the cell death seen in SOD1-associated forms of ALS is the consequences of some kind of toxic effect caused by the mutant protein.
So what did the Aussie researchers find about SOD1 in Parkinson’s disease?
This week, the Aussie researchers published this research report:
Title: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-like superoxide dismutase 1 proteinopathy is associated withneuronal loss in Parkinson’s disease brain.
Authors: Trist BG, Davies KM, Cottam V, Genoud S, Ortega R, Roudeau S, Carmona A, De Silva K, Wasinger V, Lewis SJG, Sachdev P, Smith B, Troakes C, Vance C, Shaw C, Al-Sarraj S, Ball HJ, Halliday GM, Hare DJ, Double KL.
Journal: Acta Neuropathol. 2017 May 19. doi: 10.1007/s00401-017-1726-6.
Given that oxidative stress is a major feature of Parkinson’s disease, the Aussie researchers wanted to investigate the role of the anti-oxidant enzyme, SOD1 in this condition. And what they found surprised them.
Heck, it surprised us!
Two areas affected by Parkinson’s disease – the substantia nigra (where the dopamine neurons reside; SNc in the image below) and the locus coeruleus (an area in the brain stem that is involved with physiological responses to stress; LC in the image below) – exhibited little or no SOD1 protein in the control brains.
But in the Parkinsonian brains, there was a great deal of SOD1 protein (see image below).
SO1 staining in PD brain and Control brains. Source: Springer
In the image above, you can see yellowish-brown stained patches in both the PD and control images. This a chemical called neuromelanin and it can be used to identify the dopamine-producing cells in the SNc and LC. The grey staining in the PD images (top) are cells that contain SOD1. Note the lack of SOD1 (grey staining) in the control images (bottom).
Approximately 90% of Lewy bodies in the Parkinson’s affected brains contained SOD1 protein. The investigators did report that the levels of SOD1 protein varied between Lewy bodies. But the clustered (or ‘aggregated’) SOD1 protein was not just present with alpha synuclein, often it was found by itself in the degenerating regions.
The researchers occasional saw SOD1 aggregation in regions of age-matched control brains, and they concluded that a very low level of SOD1 must be inherent to the normal ageing process.
But the density of SOD1 clustering was (on average) 8x higher in the SNc and 4x higher in the LC in the Parkinsonian brain compared to age-matched controls. In addition, the SOD1 clustering was significantly greater in these regions than all of the non-degenerating regions of the same Parkinson’s disease brains.
The investigators concluded that these data suggest an association between SOD1 aggregation and neuronal loss in Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, the presence of SOD1 aggregations “closely reflected the regional pattern of neuronal loss”.
They also demonstrated that the SOD1 protein in the Parkinsonian brain was not folded correctly, a similar characteristic to alpha synuclein. A protein must fold properly to be able to do it’s assigned jobs. By not folding into the correct configuration, the SOD1 protein could not do it’s various functions – and the investigators observed a 66% reduction in SOD1 specific activity in the SNc of the Parkinson’s disease brains.
Interestingly, when the researchers looked at the SNc and LC of brains from people with ALS, they identified SOD1 aggregates matching the SOD1 clusters they had seen in these regions of the Parkinson’s disease brain.
Is this the first time SOD1 has been associated with Parkinson’s disease?
No, but it is the first major analysis of postmortem Parkinsonian brains. SOD1 protein in Lewy bodies has been reported before:
Title: Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase-like immunoreactivity is present in Lewy bodies from Parkinson disease: a light and electron microscopic immunocytochemical study
Authors: Nishiyama K, Murayama S, Shimizu J, Ohya Y, Kwak S, Asayama K, Kanazawa I.
Journal: Acta Neuropathol. 1995;89(6):471-4.
The investigators behind this study reported SOD1 protein was present in Lewy bodies, in the substantia nigra and locus coeruleus of brains from five people with Parkinson’s disease. Interestingly, they showed that SOD1 is present in the periphery of the Lewy body, similar to alpha synuclein. Both of these protein are present on the outside of the Lewy body, as opposed to another Parkinson’s associated protein, Ubiquitin, which is mainly present in the centre (or the core) of Lewy bodies (see image below).
A more recent study also demonstrated SOD1 protein in the Parkinsonian brain, including direct interaction between SOD1 and alpha synuclein:
Title: α-synuclein interacts with SOD1 and promotes its oligomerization
Authors: Helferich AM, Ruf WP, Grozdanov V, Freischmidt A, Feiler MS, Zondler L, Ludolph AC, McLean PJ, Weishaupt JH, Danzer KM.
Journal: Mol Neurodegener. 2015 Dec 8;10:66.
PMID: 26643113 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
These researchers found that alpha synuclein and SOD1 interact directly, and they noted that Parkinson’s disease related mutations in alpha synuclein (A30P, A53T) and ALS associated mutation in SOD1 (G85R, G93A) modify the binding of the two proteins to each other. They also reported that alpha synuclein accelerates SOD1 aggregation in cell culture. This same group of researchers published another research report last year in which they noted that aggregated alpha synuclein increases SOD1 clustering in a mouse model of ALS (Click here for more on this).
Are there any genetic mutations in the SOD1 gene that are associated with Parkinson’s disease?
Two studies have addressed this question:
Title: Sequence of the superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD 1) gene in familial Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Bandmann O, Davis MB, Marsden CD, Harding AE.
Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1995 Jul;59(1):90-1.
PMID: 7608718 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
And then in 2001, a second analysis:
Title: Genetic polymorphisms of superoxide dismutase in Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Farin FM, Hitosis Y, Hallagan SE, Kushleika J, Woods JS, Janssen PS, Smith-Weller T, Franklin GM, Swanson PD, Checkoway H.
Journal: Mov Disord. 2001 Jul;16(4):705-7.
Both studies found no genetic variations in the SOD1 gene that were more frequent in the Parkinson’s affected community than the general population. So, no, there are no SOD1 genetic mutations that are associated with Parkinson’s disease.
Are there any treatments targeting SOD1 that could be tested in Parkinson’s disease?
Great question. Yes there are. And they have already been tested in models of PD:
Title: The hypoxia imaging agent CuII(atsm) is neuroprotective and improves motor and cognitive functions in multiple animal models of Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Hung LW, Villemagne VL, Cheng L, Sherratt NA, Ayton S, White AR, Crouch PJ, Lim S, Leong SL, Wilkins S, George J, Roberts BR, Pham CL, Liu X, Chiu FC, Shackleford DM, Powell AK, Masters CL, Bush AI, O’Keefe G, Culvenor JG, Cappai R, Cherny RA, Donnelly PS, Hill AF, Finkelstein DI, Barnham KJ.
Title: J Exp Med. 2012 Apr 9;209(4):837-54.
PMID: 22473957 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
CuII(atsm) is a drug that is currently under clinical investigation as a brain imaging agent for detecting hypoxia (damage caused by lack of oxygen – Click here to read more about this).
The researchers conducting this study, however, were interested in this compound for other reasons: CuII(atsm) is also a highly effective scavenger of a chemical called ONOO, which can be very toxic. CuII(atsm) not only inhibits this toxicity, but it also blocks the clustering of alpha synuclein. And given that CuII(atsm) is capable of crossing the blood–brain barrier, these investigators wanted to assess the drug for its ability to rescue model of Parkinson’s disease.
And guess what? It did!
And not just in one model of Parkinson’s disease, but FOUR!
The investigators even waited three days after giving the neurotoxins to the mice before giving the CuII(atsm) drug, and it still demonstrated neuroprotection. It also improved the behavioural features of these models of Parkinson’s disease.
Is CuII(atsm) being tested for anything else in Clinical trials?
Yes, there is a clinical trial ongoing for ALS in Australia.
The Phase I study, being run by Collaborative Medicinal Development Pty Limited, is a dose escalating study of Cu(II)ATSM to determine if this drug is safe for use in ALS (Click here for more on this study).
Cu(II)ATSM is an orally administered drug that inhibits the activity of misfolded SOD1 protein. It has been shown to paradoxically increase mutant SOD1 protein in a mouse model of ALS, but it also provides neuroprotection and improves the outcome for these mice (Click here to read more on this).
If this trial is successful, it would be interesting to test this drug on a cohort of people with Parkinson’s disease. Determining which subgroup of the Parkinson’s affected community would most benefit from this treatment is still to be determined. There is some evidence published last year that suggests people with genetic mutations in the Parkinson’s associated gene PARK2 could benefit from the approach (Click here to read more on this). More research, however, is needed in this area.
So what does it all mean?
Right, so summing up, a group of Australian researchers have reported that the ALS associated protein SOD1 is closely associated with the cell death that we observe in the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease.
They suggest that this could highlight a common mechanisms of toxic SOD1 aggregation in both Parkinson’s disease and ALS. Individuals within the Parkinson’s affected community do not appear to have any genetic mutations in the SOD1 gene, which makes this finding is very interesting.
What remains to be determined is whether SOD1 aggregation is a “primary pathological event”, or if it is secondary to some other disease causing agent. We are also waiting to see if a clinical trial targeting SOD1 in ALS is successful. If it is, there may be good reasons for targeting SOD1 as a novel treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Pinterest
The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has approved the first drug in 22 years for treating the neurodegenerative condition of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
The drug is called Edaravone, and it is only the second drug approved for ALS.
In today’s post we’ll discuss what this announcement could mean for Parkinson’s disease.
Lou Gehrig. Source: NBC
In 1969, Henry Louis “Lou” Gehrig was voted the greatest first baseman of all time by the Baseball Writers’ Association. He played 17 seasons with the New York Yankees, having signed with his hometown team in 1923.
For 56 years, he held the record for the most consecutive games played (2,130), and he was only prevented from continuing that streak when he voluntarily took himself out of the team lineup on the 2nd May, 1939, after his ability to play became hampered by the disease that now often bears his name. A little more than a month later he retired, and a little less than two years later he passed away.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (or ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease and motor neuron disease, is a neurodegenerative condition in which the neurons that control voluntary muscle movement die. The condition affects 2 people in every 100,000 each year, and those individuals have an average survival time of two to four years.
ALS in a nutshell. Source: Walkforals
In addition to Lou Gehrig, you may have heard of ALS via the ‘Ice bucket challenge‘ (see image in the banner of this post). In August 2014, an online video challenge went viral.
By July 2015, the ice bucket campaign had raised an amazing $115 million for the ALS Association.
Another reason you may have heard of ALS is that theoretical physicist, Prof Stephen Hawking also has the condition:
He was diagnosed with in a very rare early-onset, slow-progressing form of ALS in 1963 (at age 21) that has gradually left him wheel chair bound.
This is very interesting, but what does it have to do with Parkinson’s disease?
Individuals affected by ALS are generally treated with a drug called Riluzole (brand names Rilutek or Teglutik). Approved in December of 1995 by the FDA, this drug increases survival by approximately two to three months.
Until this last week, Riluzole was the only drug approved for the treatment of ALS.
So what happened this week?
On the 5th May, the FDA announced that they had approved a second drug for the treatment of ALS (Click here for the press release).
It is called Edaravone.
What is Edaravone?
Edaravone is a free radical scavenger – a potent antioxidant – that is marketed as a neurovascular protective agent in Japan by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation.
An antioxidant is simply a molecule that prevents the oxidation of other molecules.
Molecules in your body often go through a process called oxidation – losing an electron and becoming unstable. This chemical reaction leads to the production of what we call free radicals, which can then go on to damage cells.
What is a free radical?
A free radical is simply an unstable molecule – unstable because they are missing electrons. They react quickly with other molecules, trying to capture the needed electron to re-gain stability. Free radicals will literally attack the nearest stable molecule, stealing an electron. This leads to the “attacked” molecule becoming a free radical itself, and thus a chain reaction is started. Inside a living cell this can cause terrible damage, ultimately killing the cell.
Antioxidants are thus the good guys in this situation. They are molecules that neutralize free radicals by donating one of their own electrons. The antioxidant don’t become free radicals by donating an electron because by their very nature they are stable with or without that extra electron.
Thus when we say ‘Edaravone is a free radical scavenger’, we mean it’s really good at scavenging all those unstable molecules and stabilising them.
It is an intravenous drug (injected into the body via a vein) and administrated for 14 days followed by 14 days drug holiday.
So, again what has this got to do with Parkinson’s disease?
Well, it is easier to start a clinical trial of a drug if it is already approved for another disease.
And the good news is: Edaravone has been shown to be neuroprotective in several models of Parkinson’s disease.
In this post, we’ll lay out some of the previous research and try to make an argument justifying the clinical testing of Edaravone in Parkinson’s disease
Ok, so what research has been done so far in models of Parkinson’s disease?
The first study to show neuroprotection in a model of Parkinson’s disease was published in 2008:
Title: Role of reactive nitrogen and reactive oxygen species against MPTP neurotoxicity in mice.
Authors: Yokoyama H, Takagi S, Watanabe Y, Kato H, Araki T.
Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2008 Jun;115(6):831-42.
In this first study, the investigators assessed the neuroprotective properties of several drugs in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease. The drugs included Edaravone (described above), minocycline (antibiotic discussed in a previous post), 7-nitroindazole (neuronal nitric oxide synthase inhibitor), fluvastatin and pitavastatin (both members of the statin drug class).
With regards to Edaravone, the news was not great: the investigators found that Edaravone (up to 30mg/kg) treatment 30 minutes before administering a neurotoxin (MPTP) and then again 90 minutes afterwards had no effect on the survival of the dopamine neurons (compared to a control treatment).
Not a good start for making a case for clinical trials!
This research report, however, was quickly followed by another from an independent group in Japan:
Title: Neuroprotective effects of edaravone-administration on 6-OHDA-treated dopaminergic neurons.
Authors: Yuan WJ, Yasuhara T, Shingo T, Muraoka K, Agari T, Kameda M, Uozumi T, Tajiri N, Morimoto T, Jing M, Baba T, Wang F, Leung H, Matsui T, Miyoshi Y, Date I.
Journal: BMC Neurosci. 2008 Aug 1;9:75.
PMID: 18671880 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
These researchers did find a neuroprotective effect using Edaravone (both in cell culture and in a rodent model of Parkinson’s disease), but they used a much higher dose than the previous study (up to 250 mg/kg in this study). This increase in dose resulted in a graded increase in neuroprotection – interestingly, these researchers also found that 30mg/kg of Edaravone had limited neuroprotective effects, while 250mg/kg exhibited robust dopamine cell survival and rescued the behavioural/motor features of the model even when given 24 hours after the neurotoxin.
The investigators concluded that “Edaravone might be a hopeful therapeutic option for PD, although several critical issues remain to be solved, including high therapeutic dosage of Edaravone for the safe clinical application in the future”
This results was followed by several additional studies investigating edaravone in models of Parkinson’s disease (Click here, here and here to read more on this). Of particular interest in all of those follow up studies was a report in which Edaravone treatment resulted in neuroprotective in genetic model of Parkinson’s disease:
Title: Edaravone prevents neurotoxicity of mutant L166P DJ-1 in Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Li B, Yu D, Xu Z.
Journal: J Mol Neurosci. 2013 Oct;51(2):539-49.
DJ-1 is a gene that has been associated Parkinson’s disease since 2003. The gene is sometimes referred to as PARK7 (there are now more than 20 Parkinson’s associated genomic regions, which each have a number and are referred to as the PARK genes). Genetic mutations in the DJ-1 gene can result in an autosomal recessive (meaning two copies of the mutated gene are required), early-onset form of Parkinson disease. For a very good review of DJ-1 in the context of Parkinson’s disease, please click here.
The exact function of DJ-1 is not well understood, though it does appear to play a role in helping cells deal with ‘oxidative stress’ – the over-production of those free radicals we were talking about above. Now given that edaravone is a potent antioxidant (reversing the effects of oxidative stress), the researchers conducting this study decided to test Edaravone in cells with genetic mutations in the DJ-1 gene.
Their results indicated that Edaravone was able to significantly reduce oxidative stress in the cells and improve the functioning of the mitochondria – the power stations in each cell, where cells derive their energy. Furthermore, Edaravone was found to reduce the amount of cell death in the DJ-1 mutant cells.
More recently, researchers have begun digging deeper into the mechanisms involved in the neuroprotective effects of Edaravone:
Title: Edaravone leads to proteome changes indicative of neuronal cell protection in response to oxidative stress.
Authors: Jami MS, Salehi-Najafabadi Z, Ahmadinejad F, Hoedt E, Chaleshtori MH, Ghatrehsamani M, Neubert TA, Larsen JP, Møller SG.
Journal: Neurochem Int. 2015 Nov;90:134-41.
PMID: 26232623 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
The investigators who conducted this report began by performing a comparative two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analyses of cells exposed to oxidative stress with and without treatment of Edaravone.
Um, what is “comparative two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analyses”?
Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analyses allows researchers to determine particular proteins within a given solution. Mixtures of proteins are injected into a slab of gel and they are then separated according to two properties (mass and acidity) across two dimensions (left-right side of the gel and top-bottom of the gel).
A two-dimensional gel electrophoresis result may look something like this:
Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Source: Nature
As you can see, individual proteins have been pointed out on the image of this slab of gel.
In comparative two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, two samples of solution are analysed by comparing two slabs of gel that have been injected with protein mix solution from two groups of cells treated exactly the same except for one variable. Each solution gets its own slab of gel, and the differences between the gel product will highlight which proteins are present in one condition versus the other (based on the variable being tested).
In this experiment, the variable was Edaravone.
And when the researchers compared the proteins of Edaravone treated cells with those of cells not treated with Edaravone, they found that the neuroprotective effect of Edaravone was being caused by an increase in a protein called Peroxiredoxin-2.
Now this was a really interesting finding.
You see, Peroxiredoxin proteins are a family (there are 6 members) of antioxidant enzymes. And of particular interest with regards to Parkinson’s disease is the close relationship between DJ-1 (the Parkinson’s associated protein discussed above) and peroxiredoxin proteins (Click here, here, here and here to read more about this).
In addition, there are also 169 research reports dealing with the peroxiredoxin proteins and Parkinson’s disease (Click here to see a list of those reports).
So, what do you think about a clinical trial for Edaravone in Parkinson’s disease?
Are you convinced?
Regardless, it an interesting drug huh?
Are there any downsides to the drug?
One slight issue with the drug is that it is injected via a vein. Alternative systems of delivery, however, are being explored.A biotech company in the Netherlands, called Treeway is developing an oral formulation of edaravone (called TW001) and is currently in clinical development.
Edaravone was first approved for clinical use in Japan on May 23, 2001. With almost 17 years of Edaravone clinical use, a few adverse events including acute renal failure have been noted, thus precautions should be taken with individuals who have a history of renal problems. The most common side effects associated with the drug, however, are: fatigue, nausea, and some mild anxiety.
Click here for a good overview of the clinical history of Edaravone.
So what does it all mean?
The announcement from the FDA this week regarding the approval of Edaravone as a new treatment for ALS represents a small victory for the ALS community, but it may also have a significant impact on other neurodegenerative conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease.
Edaravone is a potent antioxidant agent, which has been shown to have neuroprotective effects in various models of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions. It could be interesting to now test the drug clinically for Parkinson’s disease. Many of the preclinical research reports indicate that the earlier Edaravone treatment starts, the better the outcomes, so any initial clinical trials should focus on recently diagnosed subjects (perhaps even those with DJ-1 mutations).
The take home message of this post is: given that Edaravone has now been approved for clinical use by the FDA, it may be advantageous for the Parkinson’s community to have a good look at whether this drug could be repurposed for Parkinson’s disease.
It’s just a thought.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Forbes
Donating blood helps to save lives. And an awful lot of blood is needed on a daily basis: In the England alone, over 6,000 blood donations are required every day to treat patients.
There has been concerns over the years about what can be transmitted via blood donation (from donor to recipient). The good news is that we now know that Parkinson’s disease is not.
Today’s post looks at recent research investigating this issue and discusses the implications of the findings.
Blood transfusions save lifes. Source: New York Times
The average adult human carries approx. 10 pints (about 6 litres) of blood in his body. So much blood, that we actually have an excess – we can survive with a little less. And this allows us to donate blood to blood banks on a regular basis (approx. every 8 weeks). Roughly 1 pint can be given during each blood donation and our bodies will have no trouble replacing it all.
These donations can be used in blood transfusions, replacing blood that has been lost via accident or during surgical procedures. It may surprise you that blood transfusion (from human to human) has been practised for some time. The very first blood transfusion was performed by an obstetrician named Dr. James Blundell in the late 1820’s.
Dr. James Blundell. Source: Wikpedia
The exact date of that first procedure is the subject of debate, but Blundell wrote up his experience in the journal Lancet in 1829:
Blundell’s article in the journal Lancet. Source: Wikipedia
Since that time, blood transfusions have gradually become an everyday occurrence at hospitals all over the world. And as we suggested above a lot of blood is used on a daily basis, keeping people alive. Determining whether each donation of blood is safe to use is obviously a critical step in this process, and all donated blood is tested for HIV, hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases before it is released to hospitals. But for a long time there has been a lingering concern that not everything is being detected and filtered out.
In fact there has been a serious concern that some neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease may be transmissible. If these diseases are being caused by ‘prion-like behaviour’ from the particular proteins involved with these conditions (eg. beta amyloid and alpha synuclein, respectively), then there is a very real possibility that such rogue proteins could be transferred via blood transfusions.
This was a concern (note the past tense) until July of this year when this research report was published (with a rather mis-leading title):
Title: Transmission of neurodegenerative disorders through blood transfusion. A cohort study
Authors: Edgren G, Hjalgrim H, Rostgaard K, Lambert P, Wikman A, Norda R, Titlestad KE, Erikstrup C, Ullum H, Melbye M, Busch MP, Nyrén O.
Journal: Ann Intern Med. 2016 Sep 6;165(5):316-24.
The researchers in this study took all of the data from the enormous nationwide registers of blood transfusions in Sweden and Denmark – collectively almost 1.5 million people have received transfusions in these two countries between 1968 and 2012 – and compared the medical records of the recipients to those of the donors (you have to love the Scandinavians for the medical databases!). Approximately 3% of the recipients received a blood transfusion from a donor who was diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative diseases included in this study (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Motor neurone disease (or Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis – ALS). There was absolutely no evidence of transmission of any of these diseases.
For the statistic lovers amongst you, the hazard ratio for dementia in recipients of blood from donors with dementia versus recipients of blood from healthy donors was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.09). Estimates for individual diseases, Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease were 0.99 (CI, 0.85 to 1.15) and 0.94 (CI, 0.78 to 1.14), respectively.
These statistics mean that if Parkinson’s disease is being transmitted via a blood transfusion, it is an extremely rare event.
So what does this mean for our understanding of Parkinson’s disease?
Well, we already know that you can’t catch Parkinson’s disease from your spouse (Click here to read more on this) and there is a lot of other evidence to suggest that Parkinson’s disease is not contagious (Click here to read more on this). So this is one less thing for carers, family members and friends to worry about.
But if Parkinson’s disease is not caused by some contagious agent, this knowledge has major implications for our understanding of the disease. Previous lab-based research has pointed toward a ‘Prion’-like nature to alpha synuclein (the protein most associated with Parkinson’s disease. Prions being small infectious agents made up entirely of protein material, that can lead to disease that is similar to viral infection. And researchers actually found that if you inject specific types of alpha synuclein into the muscles of mice, those animals would start to develop cell loss in the brain (Click here to read more about this).
If Parkinson’s disease is a ‘prion’ condition, then we have to ask one important question: why isn’t it being transmitted via blood transfusion? Alpha synuclein is certainly found in the blood of people with Parkinson’s disease.
It could be that an infectious agent initiated the condition many years ago and it has very slowly been developing (similar to chronic infections resulting from Hepatitis – click here to read more on this).
Research like we have reviewed today may result in a serious re-think of our theory of Parkinson’s disease.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from CampusCluj
Curious new research results out of Sweden this weekend…
To all of our readers who have older siblings that you grew up fighting with – you should go and give them a hug today, because apparently they have lowered your risk of Parkinson’s disease.
Like I said ‘curious’.
Older siblings. Nothing but trouble (a bit like younger siblings now that I think about it).
Who needs them.
Well, according to a massive new epidemiological study from the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm (Sweden), we all do!
Title: Early-Life Factors and Risk of Parkinson’s Disease: A Register-Based Cohort Study.
Authors: Liu B, Chen H, Fang F, Tillander A, Wirdefeldt K.
Journal: PLoS One. 2016 Apr 15;11(4):e0152841.
PMID: 27082111 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
This is a fascinating study, not only in its size and scale, but for the interesting details in the results.
The investigators collected a huge amount of information from multiple nationwide Swedish registers that are cross-linked thanks to the national personal identification number system that is used in Sweden (each Swedish resident is assigned a unique number).
Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. Source: Budgetyourtrip
The information was collected from:
- The Swedish Multi-Generation Register (MGR) – which holds information about the biological and adoptive parents for all residents born in 1932 or later, and were alive or lived in Sweden in 1961. This database covers over 95% of Swedish-born residents, plus more than 22% of foreign-born residents in Sweden.
- The Swedish Patient Register – established in 1964/1965, this databases collects inpatient discharge records. It became nationwide in 1987, and since 2001, the Patient Register has recorded information on every inpatient visit and vast majority of the outpatient visits for all Swedish residents.
- They also linked their data to the Migration Register and Swedish Population and Housing Censuses from 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 for information on socio-economic status.
Like I said, ‘a huge amount of information’. They next set up a selection criteria. Within their pool of people for analysis, individuals had to:
- be born in Sweden between 1932 and 1970
- have information available regarding maternal links in the MGR
- be alive and free of Parkinson’s disease on January 1, 2002,
- 40 years or older on January 1, 2002 or turned 40 years during the study period
3 545 612 people fulfilled this criteria. 8779 cases of Parkinson’s disease were identified within that population of people (a further 2658 people were identified as having Parkinson’s disease, but since they were diagnosed before 2002, they were excluded). When looking at the findings of the analysis of this study:
- the average age of diagnosis was 65.1 years of age
- males had a higher risk than females (1.5 times more men than women)
- parental occupation as farmers increased risk of Parkinson’s
- a family history of the condition results in a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease.
- No difference between blue or white collar occupations, or self employed roles
- No difference between month/season of birth
- No association with early life factors, including flu burden in the year of birth.
Compared to those without older siblings, the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was 7% lower among participants with older siblings (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.98). The number of people with no older siblings was 1.68 million, of which 5384 had Parkinson’s disease. But of those with older siblings (1.86 million) only 3395 had Parkinson’s disease. Curiously, however, there was no further associations (eg. the number of older siblings or the interval length between the individual and their older siblings).
The effect (7%) is small, but the number of cases is very large, so we can assume that the finding is real. But how to explain it?!?
Even more surprisingly:
This is not the first time we’ve seen something like this:
Title: Maternal age, exposure to siblings, and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Authors: Fang F, Kamel F, Sandler DP, Sparén P, Ye W.
Journal: Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Jun 1;167(11):1281-6.
In a similar sort of study published in 2008 (also from researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden), it was reported that the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also called Lou Gehrig’s disease; another neurodegenerative condition) increased with the number of younger siblings, and children whose first younger sibling was born after the age of 6 years had the highest risk of ALS. In contrast to the Parkinson’s research above, however, exposure to older siblings was not associated with an increased risk of ALS.
And a similar sort of result has also been observed in cases of Schizophrenia:
Title: Exposure to prenatal and childhood infections and the risk of schizophrenia: suggestions from a study of sibship characteristics and influenza prevalence.
Authors: Westergaard T, Mortensen PB, Pedersen CB, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M.
Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999 Nov;56(11):993-8.
This research came from a different Scandinavian capital (Copenhagen), and involved only 1.74 million people, but it suggested that larger sibships were associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia. This result was independent of birth order or interval length between siblings.
Why these effects exist is a question yet to be answered. In each of these studies, the authors propose elaborate possibilities (eg. developmental theories involving the immune system, etc), but there is no evidence (yet) to support them. Given that the effects are small (just a 7% reduction in risk in the case of Parkinson’s), it would be interesting to investigate differences between subjects within the Parkinson’s population, to determine if there is a subset of individuals more affected than others by this sibling phenomenon. By comparing which commonalities they may share (genetic, environmental or otherwise) we could identify patterns of risk factors for specific individuals.
So while the Parkinson’s connection is an interesting finding, obviously more research is required to better understand what is going on.
Curious result though, right?