The protein Alpha Synuclein has long been considered the bad-boy of Parkinson’s disease research. Possibly one of the main villains in the whole scheme of things.
New research suggests that it may be interfering with a neuroprotective pathway, leaving the affected cell more vulnerable to stress/toxins. But that same research has highlighted a novel beneficial feature of an old class of drugs: MAO-B inhibitors.
In today’s post we will outline the new research, discuss the results, and look at whether this new Trk warrants a re-think of MAO-B inhibitors.
The great Harry Houdini. Source: Wikipedia
I’m not sure about you, but I enjoy a good magic trick.
That exhilarating moment when you are left wondering just one thing: How do they do that?
(Seriously, at 4:40 a baguette comes out of thin air – how did he do that?)
Widely believed to have been one of the greatest magicians of all time (Source), Harry Houdini is still to this day revered among those who practise the ‘dark arts’.
Born Erik Weisz in Budapest (in 1874), Houdini arrived in the US in 1878. Fascinated with magic, in 1894, he launched his career as a professional magician and drew attention for his daring feats of escape. He renamed himself “Harry Houdini” – the first name being derived from his childhood nickname, “Ehrie,” and the last name paying homage to the great French magician Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin. In 1899, Houdini’s act caught the eye of Martin Beck, an entertainment manager, and from there the rest is history. Constantly upping the ante, his feats became bolder and more death defying.
And the crowds loved him.
From stage, he moved on to film – ultimately starting his own production company, Houdini Picture Corporation. In addition, he was a passionate debunker of psychics and mediums, his training in magic helping him to expose frauds (which turned him against his former friend Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who believed deeply in spiritualism).
This is all very interesting, but what does any of it have to do with Parkinson’s?
In a recent post, I discussed research looking at foods that can influence the progression of Parkinson’s (see that post here). I am regularly asked about the topic of food and will endeavour to highlight more research along this line in future post.
In accordance with that statement, today we are going to discuss Cruciferous vegetables, and why we need a clinical trial of broccoli.
I’m not kidding.
There is growing research that a key component of broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables – called Glucoraphanin – could have beneficial effects on Parkinson’s disease. In today’s post, we will discuss what Glucoraphanin is, look at the research that has been conducted and consider why a clinical trial of broccoli would be a good thing for Parkinson’s disease.
Cruciferous vegetables. Source: Diagnosisdiet
Like most kids, when I was young I hated broccoli.
Man, I hated it. With such a passion!
Usually they were boiled or steamed to the point at which they have little or no nutritional value, and they largely became mush upon contact with my fork.
The stuff of my childhood nightmares. Source: Modernpaleo
As I have matured (my wife might debate that statement), my opinion has changed and I have come to appreciate broccoli. Our relationship has definitely improved.
In fact, I have developed a deep appreciation for all cruciferous vegetables.
And yeah, I know what you are going to ask:
What are cruciferous vegetables?
Cruciferous vegetables are vegetables of the Brassicaceae family (also called Cruciferae). They are a family of flowering plants commonly known as the mustards, the crucifers, or simply the cabbage family. They include cauliflower, cabbage, garden cress, bok choy, broccoli, brussels sprouts and similar green leaf vegetables.
Cruciferous vegetables. Source: Thetherapyshare
So what have Cruciferous vegetables got to do with Parkinson’s?
Well, it’s not the vegetables as such that are important. Rather, it is a particular chemical that this family of plants share – called Glucoraphanin – that is key.
What is Glucoraphanin?
The motor features of Parkinson’s disease can be managed with treatments that replace the chemical dopamine in the brain.
While there are many medically approved dopamine replacement drugs available for people affected by Parkinson’s disease, there also are more natural sources.
In today’s post we will look at the science and discuss the research supporting one of the most potent natural source for dopamine replacement treatment: Mucuna pruriens
When asked by colleagues and friends what is my ‘plan B’ (that is, if the career in academia does not play out – which is highly probable I might add – Click here to read more about the disastrous state of biomedical research careers), I answer that I have often considered throwing it all in and setting up a not-for-profit, non-governmental organisation to grow plantations of a tropical legume in strategic places around the world, which would provide the third-world with a cheap source of levodopa – the main treatment in the fight against Parkinson’s disease.
Plan B: A legume plantation. Source: Tropicalforages
The response to my answer is generally one of silent wonder – that is: me silently wondering if they think I’m crazy, and them silently wondering what on earth I’m talking about.
As romantic as the concept sounds, there is an element of truth to my Plan B idea.
I have read many news stories and journal articles about the lack of treatment options for those people with Parkinson’s disease living in the developing world.
Hospital facilities in the rural Africa. Source: ParkinsonsLife
Some of the research articles on this topic provide a terribly stark image of the contrast between people suffering from Parkinson’s disease in the developing world versus the modernised world. A fantastic example of this research is the work being done by the dedicated researchers at the Parkinson Institute in Milan (Italy), who have been conducting the “Parkinson’s disease in Africa collaboration project”.
The researchers at the Parkinson Institute in Milan. Source: Parkinson Institute
The project is an assessment of the socio-demographic, epidemiological, clinical features and genetic causes of Parkinson’s disease in people attending the neurology out-patients clinic of the Korle Bu Teaching and Comboni hospitals. Their work has resulted in several really interesting research reports, such as this one:
Title: The modern pre-levodopa era of Parkinson’s disease: insights into motor complications from sub-Saharan Africa.
Authors: Cilia R, Akpalu A, Sarfo FS, Cham M, Amboni M, Cereda E, Fabbri M, Adjei P, Akassi J, Bonetti A, Pezzoli G.
Journal: Brain. 2014 Oct;137(Pt 10):2731-42.
PMID: 25034897 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers collected data in Ghana between December 2008 and November 2012, and each subject was followed-up for at least 6 months after the initiation of Levodopa therapy. In total, 91 Ghanaians were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease (58 males, average age at onset 60 ± 11 years), and they were compared to 2282 Italian people with Parkinson’s disease who were recruited during the same period. In long-term follow up, 32 Ghanaians with Parkinson’s disease were assessed (with an average follow period of 2.6 years).
There are some interesting details in the results of the study, such as:
- Although Levodopa therapy was generally delayed – due to availability and affordability – in Ghana (average disease duration before Levodopa treatment was 4.2 years in Ghana versus just 2.4 years in Italy), the actual disease duration – as determined by the occurrence of motor fluctuations and the onset of dyskinesias – was similar in the two populations.
- The motor fluctuations were similar in the two populations, with a slightly lower risk of dyskinesias in Ghanaians.
- Levodopa daily doses were higher in Italians, but this difference was no longer significant after adjusting for body weight.
- Ghanaian Parkinson’s sufferers who developed dyskinesias were younger at onset than those who did not.
Reading these sorts of research reports, I am often left baffled by the modern business world’s approach to medicine. I am also left wondering how an individual’s experience of Parkinson’s disease in some of these developing nations would be improved if a cheap alternative to the dopamine replacement therapies was available.
Are any cheap alternatives available?
In addition to looking at current Parkinson’s disease research on this website, I like to look at where technological advances are taking us with regards to future therapies.
In July of this year, I wrote about a new class of engineered viruses that could potentially allow us to treat conditions like Parkinson’s disease using a non-invasive, gene therapy approach (Click here to read that post). At the time I considered this technology way off at some point in the distant future. Blue sky research. “Let’s wait and see” – sort of thing.
So imagine my surprise when an Italian research group last weekend published a new research report in which they used this futurist technology to correct a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease. Suddenly the distant future is feeling not so ‘distant’.
In today’s post we will review and discuss the results, and look at what happens next.
Technological progress – looking inside the brain. Source: Digitial Trends
I have said several times in the past that the pace of Parkinson’s disease research at the moment is overwhelming.
So much is happening so quickly that it is quite simply difficult to keep up. Not just here on the blog, but also with regards to the ever increasing number of research articles in the “need to read” pile on my desk. It’s mad. It’s crazy. Just as I manage to digest something new from one area of research, two or three other publications pop up in different areas.
But it is the shear speed with which things are moving now in the field of Parkinson’s research that is really mind boggling!
Take for example the case of Squalamine.
In February of this year, researchers published an article outlining how a drug derived from the spiny dogfish could completely suppress the toxic effect of the Parkinson’s associated protein Alpha Synuclein (Click here to read that post).
The humble dogfish. Source: Discovery
And then in May (JUST 3 MONTHS LATER!!!), a biotech company called Enterin Inc. announced that they had just enrolled their first patient in the RASMET study: a Phase 1/2a randomised, controlled, multi-center clinical study evaluating a synthetic version of squalamine (called MSI-1436) in people with Parkinson’s disease. The study will enrol 50 patients over a 9-to-12-month period (Click here for the press release).
Wow! That is fast.
Yeah, I thought so too, but then this last weekend a group in Italy published new research that completely changed my ideas on the meaning of the word ‘fast’. Regular readers will recall that in July I discussed amazing new technology that may one day allow us to inject a virus into a person’s arm and then that virus will make it’s way up to the brain and only infect the cells that we want to have a treatment delivered to. This represents non-invasive (as no surgery is required), gene therapy (correcting a medical condition with the delivery of DNA rather than medication). This new study used the same virus we discussed in July.
In my previous post, we briefly reviewed the results of the phase II double-blind, randomised clinical trial of Exenatide in Parkinson’s disease. The study indicates a statistically significant effect on motor symptom scores after being treated with the drug.
Over the last few days, there have been many discussions about the results, what they mean for the Parkinson’s community, and where things go from here, which have led to further questions.
In this post I would like to address several matters that have arisen which I did not discuss in the previous post, but that I believe are important.
I found out about the Exenatide announcement – via whispers online – on the afternoon of the release. And it was in a mad rush when I got home that night that I wrote up the post explaining what Exenatide is. I published the post the following evening however because I could not access the research report from home (seriously guys, biggest finding in a long time and it’s not OPEN ACCESS?!?!?) and I had to wait until I got to work the next day to actually view the publication.
I was not really happy with the rushed effort though and decided to follow up that post. In addition, there has been A LOT of discussion about the results over the weekend and I thought it might be good to bring aspects of those different discussion together here. The individual topics are listed below, in no particular order of importance:
1. Size of the effect
There are two considerations here.
Firstly, there have been many comments about the actual size of the effect in the results of the study itself. When people have taken a deeper look at the findings, they have come back with questions regarding those findings.
And second, there have also been some comments about the size of the effect that this result has already had on the Parkinson’s community, which has been considerable (and possibly disproportionate to the actual result).
The size of the effect in the results
The results of the study suggested that Exenatide had a positive effect on the motor-related symptoms of Parkinson’s over the course of the 60 week trial. This is what the published report says, it is also what all of the media headlines have said, and it sounds really great right?
The main point folks keep raising, however, is that the actual size of the positive effect is limited to just the motor features of Parkinson’s disease. If one ignores the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores and focuses on the secondary measures, there isn’t much to talk about. In fact, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary outcome measures. These included:
For many people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, one of the scariest prospects of the condition that they face is the possibility of developing dyskinesias.
Dyskinesias are involuntary movements that can develop after long term use of the primary treatment of Parkinson’s disease: Levodopa
In todays post I discuss one experimental strategy for dealing with this debilitating aspect of Parkinson’s disease.
Dyskinesia. Source: JAMA Neurology
There is a normal course of events with Parkinson’s disease (and yes, I am grossly generalising here).
First comes the shock of the diagnosis.
This is generally followed by the roller coaster of various emotions (including disbelief, sadness, anger, denial).
Then comes the period during which one will try to familiarise oneself with the condition (reading books, searching online, joining Facebook groups), and this usually leads to awareness of some of the realities of the condition.
One of those realities (especially for people with early onset Parkinson’s disease) are dyskinesias.
What are dyskinesias?
Dyskinesias (from Greek: dys – abnormal; and kinēsis – motion, movement) are simply a category of movement disorders that are characterised by involuntary muscle movements. And they are certainly not specific to Parkinson’s disease.
As I have suggested in the summary at the top, they are associated in Parkinson’s disease with long-term use of Levodopa (also known as Sinemet or Madopar).
Sinemet is Levodopa. Source: Drugs
Two months ago a research report was published in the scientific journal ‘Nature’ and it caused a bit of a fuss in the embryonic stem cell world.
Embryonic stem (ES) cells are currently being pushed towards the clinic as a possible source of cells for regenerative medicine. But this new report suggested that quite a few of the embryonic stem cells being tested may be carrying genetic variations that could be bad. Bad as in cancer bad.
In this post, I will review the study and discuss what it means for cell transplantation therapy for Parkinson’s disease.
For folks in the stem cell field, the absolute go-to source for all things stem cell related is Prof Paul Knoepfler‘s blog “The Niche“. From the latest scientific research to exciting new stem cell biotech ventures (and even all of the regulatory changes being proposed in congress), Paul’s blog is a daily must read for anyone serious about stem cell research. He has his finger on the pulse and takes the whole field very, very seriously.
For a long time now, Paul has been on a personal crusade. Like many others in the field (including yours truly), he has been expressing concern about the unsavoury practices of the growing direct-to-consumer, stem cell clinic industry. You may have seen him mentioned in the media regarding this topic (such as this article).
The real concern is that while much of the field is still experimental, many stem cell clinics are making grossly unsubstantiated claims to draw in customers. From exaggerated levels of successful outcomes (100% satisfaction rate?) all the way through to talking about clinical trials that simply do not exist. The industry is badly (read: barely) regulated which is ultimately putting patients at risk (one example: three patients were left blind after undergoing an unproven stem cell treatment – click here to read more on this).
While the stem cell research field fully understands and appreciates the desperate desire of the communities affected by various degenerative conditions, there has to be regulations and strict control standards that all practitioners must abide by. And first amongst any proposed standards should be that the therapy has been proven to be effective for a particular condition in independently audited double blind, placebo controlled trials. Until such proof is provided, the sellers of such products are simply preying on the desperation of the people seeking these types of procedures.
The image above presents a ‘before treatment’ (left) and ‘after treatment’ (right) brain scan image from a recent research report of a clinical study that looked at the use of Acetylcysteine (also known as N-acetylcysteine or simply NAC) in Parkinson’s disease.
DaTscan brain imaging technique allows us to look at the level of dopamine processing in an individual’s brain. Red areas representing a lot; blue areas – not so much. The image above represents a rather remarkable result and it certainly grabbed our attention here at the SoPD HQ (I have never seen anything like it!).
In today’s post, we will review the science behind this NAC and discuss what is happening with ongoing clinical trials.
Source: The Register
Let me ask you a personal question:
Have you ever overdosed on Paracetamol?
Regardless of your answer to that question, one of the main treatments for Paracetamol overdose is administration of a drug called ‘Acetylcysteine’.
Why are you telling me this?
Because acetylcysteine is currently being assessed as a potential treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
Oh I see. Tell me more. What is acetylcysteine?
Acetylcysteine. Source: Wikimedia
Acetylcysteine (N-acetylcysteine or NAC – commercially named Mucomyst) is a prodrug – that is a compound that undergoes a transformation when ingested by the body and then begins exhibiting pharmacological effects. Acetylcysteine serves as a prodrug to a protein called L-cysteine, and – just as L-dopa is an intermediate in the production of dopamine – L-cysteine is an intermediate in the production of another protein called glutathione.
Take home message: Acetylcysteine allows for increased production of Glutathione.
What is glutathione?
Glutathione. Source: Wikipedia
Glutathione (pronounced “gloota-thigh-own”) is a tripeptide (a string of three amino acids connected by peptide bonds) containing the amino acids glycine, glutamic acid, and cysteine. It is produced naturally in nearly all cells. In the brain, glutathione is concentrated in the helper cells (called astrocytes) and also in the branches of neurons, but not in the actual cell body of the neuron.
It functions as a potent antioxidant.
A new research report looking at the use of cholesterol-reducing drugs and the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease has just been published in the scientific journal Movement disorders.
The results of that study have led to some pretty startling headlines in the media, which have subsequently led to some pretty startled people who are currently taking the medication called statins.
In todays post, we will look at what statins are, what the study found, and discuss what it means for our understanding of Parkinson’s disease.
Cholesterol forming plaques (yellow) in the lining of arteries. Source: Healthguru
Cholesterol gets a lot of bad press.
Whether it’s high and low, the perfect balance of cholesterol in our blood seems to be critical to our overall health and sense of wellbeing. At least that is what we are constantly being told this by media and medical professionals alike.
But ask yourself this: Why? What exactly is cholesterol?
Good question. What is cholesterol?
Cholesterol (from the Greek ‘chole‘- bile and ‘stereos‘ – solid) is a waxy substance that is circulating our bodies. It is generated by the liver, but it is also found in many foods that we eat (for example, meats and egg yolks).
The chemical structure of Cholesterol. Source: Wikipedia
Cholesterol falls into one of three major classes of lipids – those three classes of lipids being Triglycerides, Phospholipids and Steroids (cholesterol is a steroid). Lipids are major components of the cell membranes and thus very important. Given that the name ‘lipids’ comes from the Greek lipos meaning fat, people often think of lipids simply as fats, but fats more accurately fall into just one class of lipids (Triglycerides).
Like many fats though, cholesterol dose not dissolve in water. As a result, it is transported within the blood system encased in a protein structure called a lipoprotein.
The structure of a lipoprotein; the purple C inside represents cholesterol. Source: Wikipedia
Lipoproteins have a very simple classification system based on their density:
- very low density lipoprotein (VLDL)
- low density lipoprotein (LDL)
- intermediate density lipoprotein (IDL)
- high density lipoprotein (HDL).
Now understand that all of these different types of lipoproteins contain cholesterol, but they are carrying it to different locations and this is why some of these are referred to as good and bad.
The first three types of lipoproteins carry newly synthesised cholesterol from the liver to various parts of the body, and thus too much of this activity would be bad as it results in an over supply of cholesterol clogging up different areas, such as the arteries.
LDLs, in particular, carry a lot of cholesterol (with approximately 50% of their contents being cholesterol, compared to only 20-30% in the other lipoproteins), and this is why LDLs are often referred to as ‘bad cholesterol’. High levels of LDLs can result in atherosclerosis (or the build-up of fatty material inside your arteries).
Progressive and painless, atherosclerosis develops as cholesterol silently and slowly accumulates in the wall of the artery, in clumps that are called plaques. White blood cells stream in to digest the LDL cholesterol, but over many years the toxic mess of cholesterol and cells becomes an ever enlarging plaque. If the plaque ever ruptures, it could cause clotting which would lead to a heart attack or stroke.
So yeah, some lipoproteins can be considered bad.
HDLs, on the other hand, collects cholesterol and other lipids from cells around the body and take them back to the liver. And this is why HDLs are sometimes referred to as “good cholesterol” because higher concentrations of HDLs are associated with lower rates of atherosclerosis progression (and hopefully regression).
But why is cholesterol important?
While cholesterol is usually associated with what is floating around in your bloodstream, it is also present (and very necessary) in every cell in your body. It helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D, and the bile acids that help you digest fat.
It is particularly important for your brain, which contains approximately 25 percent of the cholesterol in your body. Numerous neurodegenerative conditions are associated with cholesterol disfunction (such as Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s disease – Click here for more on this). In addition, low levels of cholesterol is associated with violent behaviour (Click here to read more about this).
Are there any associations between cholesterol and Parkinson’s disease?
The associations between cholesterol and Parkinson’s disease is a topic of much debate. While there have been numerous studies investigating cholesterol levels in blood in people with Parkinson’s disease, the results have not been consistent (Click here for a good review on this topic).
Rather than looking at cholesterol directly, a lot of researchers have chosen to focus on the medication that is used to treat high levels of cholesterol – a class of drugs called statins.
Title: Prospective study of statin use and risk of Parkinson disease.
Authors: Gao X, Simon KC, Schwarzschild MA, Ascherio A.
Journal: Arch Neurol. 2012 Mar;69(3):380-4.
PMID: 22410446 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study the researchers conduced a prospective study involving the medical details of 38 192 men and 90 874 women from two huge US databases: the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS).
NHS study was started in 1976 when 121,700 female registered nurses (aged 30 to 55 years) completed a mailed questionnaire. They provided an overview of their medical histories and health-related behaviours. The HPFS study was established in 1986, when 51,529 male health professionals (40 to 75 years) responded to a similar questionnaire. Both the NHS and the HPFS send out follow-up questionnaires every 2 years.
By analysing all of that data, the investigators found 644 cases of Parkinson’s disease (338 women and 306 men). They noticed that the risk of Parkinson’s disease was approximately 25% lower among people currently taking statins when compared to people not using statins. And this association was significant in statin users younger than 60 years of age (P = 0.02).
What are statins?
Also known as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, statins are a class of drug that inhibits/blocks an enzyme called 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase.
HMG-CoA reductase is the key enzyme regulating the production of cholesterol from mevalonic acid in the liver. By blocking this process statins help lower the total amount of cholesterol available in your bloodstream.
Statins are used to treat hypercholesterolemia (also called dyslipidemia) which is high levels of cholesterol in the blood. And they are one of the most widely prescribed classes of drugs currently available, with approximately 23 percent of adults in the US report using statin medications (Source).
Now, while the study above found an interesting association between statin use and a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease, the other research published on this topic has not been very consistent. In fact, a review in 2009 found a significant associations between statin use and lower risk of Parkinson’s disease was observed in only two out of five prospective studies (Click here to see that review).
New research published this week has attempted to clear up some of that inconsistency, by starting with a huge dataset and digging deep into the numbers.
So what new research has been published?
Title: Statins may facilitate Parkinson’s disease: Insight gained from a large, national claims database
Authors: Liu GD, Sterling NW, Kong L, Lewis MM, Mailman RB, Chen H, Leslie D, Huang X
Journal: Movement Disorder, 2017 Jun;32(6):913-917.
Using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database which catalogues the healthcare use and medical expenditures of more than 50 million employees and their family members each year, the researcher behind that study identified 30,343,035 individuals that fit their initial criteria (that being “all individuals in the database who had 1 year or more of continuous enrolment during January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012, and were 40 years of age or older at any time during their enrolment”). From this group, the researcher found a total of 21,599 individuals who had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
In their initial analysis, the researchers found that Parkinson’s disease was positively associated with age, male gender, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and usage of cholesterol-lowering drugs (both statins and non-statins). The condition was negatively associated with hyperlipidemia (or high levels of cholesterol). This result suggests not only that people with higher levels of cholesterol have a reduced chance of developing Parkinson’s disease, but taking medication to lower cholesterol levels may actually increase ones risk of developing the condition.
One interesting finding in the data was the effect that different types of statins had on the association.
Statins can be classified into two basic groups: water soluble (or hydrophilic) and lipid soluble (or lipophilic) statins. Hydrophilic molecule have more favourable interactions with water than with oil, and vice versa for lipophilic molecules.
Hydrophilic vs lipophilic molecules. Source: Riken
Water soluble (Hydrophilic) statins include statins such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin; while all other available statins (eg. atorvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin) are lipophilic.
In this new study, the researchers found that the association between statin use and increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was more pronounced for lipophilic statins (a statistically significant 58% increase – P < 0.0001), compared to hydrophilic statins (a non-significant 19% increase – P = 0.25). One possible explanation for this difference is that lipophilic statins (like simvastatin and atorvastatin) cross the blood-brain barrier more easily and may have more effect on the brain than hydrophilic ones.
The investigators also found that this association was most robust during the initial phase of statin treatment. That is to say, the researchers observed a 82% in risk of PD within 1 year of having started statin treatment, and only a 37% increase five years after starting statin treatment.; P < 0.0001). Given this finding, the investigators questioned whether statins may be playing a facilitatory role in the development of Parkinson’s disease – for example, statins may be “unmasking” the condition during its earliest stages.
So statins are bad then?
Can I answer this question with a diplomatic “I don’t know”?
It is difficult to really answer that question based on the results of just this one study. This is mostly because this new finding is in complete contrast to a lot of experimental research over the last few years which has shown statins to be neuroprotective in many models of Parkinson’s disease. Studies such as this one:
Title: Simvastatin inhibits the activation of p21ras and prevents the loss of dopaminergic neurons in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Ghosh A, Roy A, Matras J, Brahmachari S, Gendelman HE, Pahan K.
Journal: J Neurosci. 2009 Oct 28;29(43):13543-56.
PMID: 19864567 (This study is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers found that two statins (pravastatin and simvastatin – one hydrophilic and one lipophilic, respectively) both exhibited the ability to suppress the response of helper cells in the brain (called microglial) in a neurotoxin model of Parkinson’s disease. This microglial suppression resulted in a significant neuroprotective effect on the dopamine neurons in these animals.
Another study found more Parkinson’s disease relevant effects from statin treatment:
TItle: Lovastatin ameliorates alpha-synuclein accumulation and oxidation in transgenic mouse models of alpha-synucleinopathies.
Authors: Koob AO, Ubhi K, Paulsson JF, Kelly J, Rockenstein E, Mante M, Adame A, Masliah E.
Journal: Exp Neurol. 2010 Feb;221(2):267-74.
PMID: 19944097 (This study is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers treated two different types of genetically engineered mice (both sets of mice produce very high levels of alpha synuclein – the protein closely associated with Parkinson’s disease) with a statin called lovastatin. In both groups of alpha synuclein producing mice, lovastatin treatment resulted in significant reductions in the levels of cholesterol in their blood when compared to the saline-treated control mice. The treated mice also demonstrated a significant reduction in levels of alpha synuclein clustering (or aggregation) in the brain than untreated mice, and this reduction in alpha synuclein accumulation was associated with a lessening of pathological damage in the brain.
So statins may not be all bad?
One thing many of these studies fail to do is differentiate between whether statins are causing the trouble (or benefit) directly or whether simply lowering cholesterol levels is having a negative impact. That is to say, do statins actually do something else? Other than lowering cholesterol levels, are statins having additional activities that could cause good or bad things to happen?
The recently published study we are reviewing in this post suggested that non-statin cholesterol medication is also positively associated with developing Parkinson’s disease. Thus it may be that statins are not bad, but rather the lowering of cholesterol levels that is. This raises the question of whether high levels of cholesterol are delaying the onset of Parkinson’s disease, and one can only wonder what a cholesterol-based process might be able to tell us about the development of Parkinson’s disease.
If the findings of this latest study are convincingly replicated by other groups, however, we may need to reconsider the use of statins not in our day-to-day clinical practice. At the very least, we will need to predetermine which individuals may be more susceptible to developing Parkinson’s disease following the initiation of statin treatment. It would actually be very interesting to go back to the original data set of this new study and investigate what addition medical features were shared between the people that developed Parkinson’s disease after starting statin treatment. For example, were they all glucose intolerant? One would hope that the investigators are currently doing this.
Are Statins currently being tested in the clinic for Parkinson’s disease?
(Oh boy! Tough question) Yes, they are.
There is currently a nation wide study being conducted in the UK called PD STAT.
Is this dangerous given the results of the new research study?
(Oh boy! Even tougher question!)
Again, we are asking this question based on the results of one recent study. Replication with independent databases is required before definitive conclusions can be made.
There have, however, been previous clinical studies of statins in neurodegenerative conditions and these drugs have not exhibited any negative effects (that I am aware of). In fact, a clinical trial for multiple sclerosis published in 2014 indicated some positive results for sufferers taking simvastatin:
Title: Effect of high-dose simvastatin on brain atrophy and disability in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS-STAT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.
Authors: Chataway J, Schuerer N, Alsanousi A, Chan D, MacManus D, Hunter K, Anderson V, Bangham CR, Clegg S, Nielsen C, Fox NC, Wilkie D, Nicholas JM, Calder VL, Greenwood J, Frost C, Nicholas R.
Journal: Lancet. 2014 Jun 28;383(9936):2213-21.
PMID: 24655729 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this double-blind clinical study (meaning that both the investigators and the subjects in the study were unaware of which treatment was being administered), 140 people with multiple sclerosis were randomly assigned to receive either the statin drug simvastatin (70 people; 40 mg per day for the first month and then 80 mg per day for the remainder of 18 months) or a placebo treatment (70 people).
Patients were seen at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months into the study, with telephone follow-up at months 3 and 18. MRI brain scans were also made at the start of the trial, and then again at 12 months and 25 months for comparative sake.
The results of the study indicate that high-dose simvastatin was well tolerated and reduced the rate of whole-brain shrinkage compared with the placebo treatment. The mean annualised shrinkage rate was significantly lower in patients in the simvastatin group. The researchers were very pleased with this result and are looking to conduct a larger phase III clinical trial.
Other studies have not demonstrated beneficial results from statin treatment, but they have also not observed a worsening of the disease conditions:
Title: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of simvastatin to treat Alzheimer disease.
Authors:Sano M, Bell KL, Galasko D, Galvin JE, Thomas RG, van Dyck CH, Aisen PS.
Journal: Neurology. 2011 Aug 9;77(6):556-63.
PMID: 21795660 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the investigators recruited a total of 406 individuals were mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and they were randomly assigned to two groups: 204 to simvastatin (20 mg/day, for 6 weeks then 40 mg per day for the remainder of 18 months) and 202 to placebo control treatment. While Simvastatin displayed no beneficial effects on the progression of symptoms in treated individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (other than significantly lowering of cholesterol levels), the treatment also exhibited no effect on worsening the disease.
So what does it all mean?
Research investigating cholesterol and its association with Parkinson’s disease has been going on for a long time. This week a research report involving a huge database was published which indicated that using cholesterol reducing medication could significantly increase one’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
These results do not mean that someone being administered statins is automatically going to develop Parkinson’s disease, but – if the results are replicated – it may need to be something that physicians should consider before prescribing this class of drug.
Whether ongoing clinical trials of statins and Parkinson’s disease should be reconsidered is a subject for debate well above my pay grade (and only if the current results are replicated independently). It could be that statin treatment (or lowering of cholesterol) may have an ‘unmasking’ effect in some individuals, but does this mean that any beneficial effects in other individuals should be discounted? If preclinical data is correct, for example, statins may reduce alpha synuclein clustering in some people which could be beneficial in Parkinson’s.
As we have said above, further research is required in this area before definitive conclusions can be made. This is particularly important given the inconsistencies of the previous research results in the statin and Parkinson’s disease field of investigation.
EDITORIAL NOTE: The information provided by the SoPD website is for information and educational purposes only. Under no circumstances should it ever be considered medical or actionable advice. It is provided by research scientists, not medical practitioners. Any actions taken – based on what has been read on the website – are the sole responsibility of the reader. Any actions being contemplated by readers should firstly be discussed with a qualified healthcare professional who is aware of your medical history. While some of the information discussed in this post may cause concern, please speak with your medical physician before attempting any change in an existing treatment regime.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from HarvardHealth
We have been contacted by some readers asking about a new stem cell transplantation clinical trial for Parkinson’s disease about to start in China (see the Nature journal editorial regarding this new trial by clicking here).
While this is an exciting development, there have been some concerns raised in the research community regarding this trial.
In today’s post, we will discuss what is planned and what it will mean for stem cell transplantation research.
Brain surgery. Source Bionews-tx
Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative condition.
This means that cells in the brain are slowly being lost over time. What makes the condition particularly interesting is that certain types of brain cells are more affected than others. The classic example of this is the dopamine neurons in an area of the brain called the substantia nigra, which resides in the midbrain.
The number of dark pigmented dopamine cells in the substantia nigra are reduced in the Parkinson’s disease brain (right). Source: Adapted from Memorangapp
Approximately 50% of the dopamine neurons in the midbrain have been lost by the time a person is diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease (note the lack of dark colouration in the substantia nigra of the Parkinsonian brain in the image above), and as the condition progresses the motor features – associated with the loss of dopamine neurons – gradually get worse. This is why dopamine replacement treatments (like L-dopa) are used for controlling the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.
A lot of research effort is being spent on finding disease slowing/halting treatments, but these will leave many people who have already been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease still dealing with the condition. What those individuals will require is a therapy that will be able to replace the lost cells (particularly the dopamine neurons). And researchers are also spending a great deal of time and effort on findings ways to do this. One of the most viable approaches at present is cell transplantation therapy. This approach involves actually injecting cells back into the brain to adopt the functions of the lost cells.
How does cell transplantation work?
We have discussed the history of cell transplantation in a previous post (Click here to read that post), and today we are simply going to focus on the ways this experimental treatment is being taken forward in the clinic.
Many different types of cells have been tested in cell transplantation experiments for Parkinson’s disease (Click here for a review of this topic), but to date the cells that have given the best results have been those dissected from the developing midbrain of aborted embryos.
This now old fashioned approach to cell transplantation involved dissecting out the region of the developing dopamine neurons from a donor embryo, breaking up the tissue into small pieces that could be passed through a tiny syringe, and then injecting those cells into the brain of a person with Parkinson’s disease.
The old cell transplantation process for Parkinson’s disease. Source: The Lancet
Critically, the people receiving this sort of transplant would require ‘immunosuppression treatment’ for long periods of time after the surgery. This additional treatment involves taking drugs that suppress the immune system’s ability to defend the body from foreign agents. This step is necessary, however, in order to stop the body’s immune system from attacking the transplanted cells (which would not be considered ‘self’ by the immune system), allowing those cells to have time to mature, integrate into the brain and produce dopamine.
The transplanted cells are injected into an area of the brain called the putamen. This is one of the main regions of the brain where the dopamine neurons of the substantia nigra release their dopamine. The image below demonstrates the loss of dopamine (the dark staining) over time as a result of Parkinson’s disease (PD):
The loss of dopamine in the putamen as Parkinson’s disease progresses. Source: Brain
In cell transplant procedures for Parkinson’s disease, multiple injections are usually made in the putamen, allowing for deposits in different areas of the structure. These multiple sites allow for the transplanted cells to produce dopamine in the entire extent of the putamen. And ideally, the cells should remain localised to the putamen, so that they are not producing dopamine in areas of the brain where it is not desired (possibly leading to side effects).
Targeting transplants into the putamen. Source: Intechopen
Postmortem analysis – of the brains of individuals who have previously received transplants of dopamine neurons and then subsequently died from natural causes – has revealed that the transplanted cells can survive the surgical procedure and integrate into the host brain. In the image below, you can see rich brown areas of the putamen in panel A. These brown areas are the dopamine producing cells (stained in brown). A magnified image of individual dopamine producing neurons can be seen in panel B:
Transplanted dopamine neurons. Source: Sciencedirect
The transplanted cells take several years to develop into mature neurons after the transplantation surgery, and the benefits of the transplantation technique may not be apparent for some time (2-3 years on average). Once mature, however, it has also been demonstrated (using brain imaging techniques) that these transplanted cells can produce dopamine. As you can see in the images below, there is less dopamine being processed (indicated in red) in the putamen of the Parkinsonian brain on the left than the brain on the right (several years after bi-lateral – both sides of the brain – transplants):
Brain imaging of dopamine processing before and after transplantation. Source: NIH
Sounds like a great therapy for Parkinson’s disease right?
So why aren’t we doing it???
1. The tissue used in the old approach for cell transplantation in Parkinson’s disease was dissected from embryonic brains. Obviously there are serious ethical and moral problems with using this kind of tissue. There is also a difficult problem of supply: tissue from at least 3 embryos is required for transplanting each side of the brain (6 embryos in total). Given these issues, researchers have focused their attention on a less controversial and more abundant supply of cells: brain cells derived from embryonic stem cells (the new approach to cell transplantation).
Human embryonic stem cells. Source: Wikipedia
2. The second reason why cell transplantation is not more widely available is that in the mid 1990’s, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided funding for the two placebo-controlled, double blind studies to be conducted to test the efficacy of the approach. Unfortunately, both studies failed to demonstrate any beneficial effects on Parkinson’s disease features.
In addition, many (15% – 50%) of transplanted subjects developed what are called ‘graft-induced dyskinesias’. This involves the subjects display uncontrollable/erratic movement (or dyskinesias) as a result of the transplanted cells. Interestingly, patients under 60 years of age did show signs of improvement on when assessed both clinically (using the UPDRS-III) and when assessed using brain imaging techniques (increased F-dopa uptake on PET).
Both of the NIH trials have been criticised by experts in the field for various procedural failings that could have contributed to the failures. But the overall negative results left a dark shadow over the technique for the better part of a decade. Researchers struggled to get funding for their research.
And this is the reason why many researchers are now urging caution with any new attempts at cell transplantation clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease – any further failures will really harm the field, if not kill if off completely.
Are there any clinical trials for cell transplantation in Parkinson’s disease currently being conducted?
Yes, there are currently two:
Firstly there is the Transeuro being conducted in Europe.
The Transeuro trial. Source: Transeuro
The Transeuro trial is an open label study, involving 40 subjects, transplanted in different sites across Europe. They will receive immunosuppression for at least 12 months post surgery, and the end point of the study will be 3 years post surgery, with success being based on brain imaging of dopamine release from the transplanted cells (PET scans). Based on the results of the previous NIH funding double blind clinical studies discussed above, only subject under 65 years of age have been enrolled in the study.
The European consortium behind the Transeuro trial. Source: Transeuro
In addition to testing the efficacy of the cell transplantation approach for Parkinson’s disease, another goal of the Transeuro trial is to optimise the surgical procedures with the aim of ultimately shifting over to an embryonic stem cells oriented technique in the near future with the proposed G-Force embryonic stem cell trials planned for 2018 (the Transeuro is testing the old approach to cell transplantation).
The second clinical study of cell transplantation for Parkinson’s disease is being conducted in Melbourne (Australia), by an American company called International Stem Cell Corporation.
This study is taking the new approach to cell transplantation, but the company is using a different type of stem cell to produce dopamine neurons in the Parkinsonian brain.
Specifically, the researchers will be transplanting human parthenogenetic stem cells-derived neural stem cells (hpNSC). These hpNSCs come from an unfertilized egg – that is to say, no sperm cell is involved. The female egg cell is chemically encouraged to start dividing and then it becoming a collection of cells that is called a blastocyst, which ultimately go on to contain embryonic stem cell-like cells.
The process of attaining embryonic stem cells. Source: Howstuffworks
This process is called ‘Parthenogenesis’, and it’s not actually as crazy as it sounds as it occurs naturally in some plants and animals (Click here to read more about this). Proponents of the parthenogenic approach suggest that this is a more ethical way of generating ES cells as it does not result in the destruction of a viable organism.
Regular readers of this blog will be aware that we are extremely concerned about this particular trial (Click here and here to read previous posts about this). Specifically, we worry that there is limited preclinical data from the company supporting the efficacy of these hpNSC cells being used in the clinical study (for example, researchers from the company report that the hpNSC cells they inject spread well beyond the region of interest in the company’s own published preclinical research – not an appropriate property for any cells being taken to the clinic). We have also expressed concerns regarding the researchers leading the study making completely inappropriate disclosures about the study while the study is ongoing (Click here to read more about this). Such comments only serve the interests of the company behind the study. And this last concern has been raised again with a quote in the Nature editorial about the Chinese trial:
“Russell Kern, chief scientific officer of the International Stem Cell Corporation in Carlsbad, California, which is providing the cells for and managing the Australian trial, says that in preclinical work, 97% of them became dopamine-releasing cells” (Source)
We are unaware of any preclinical data produced by Dr Kern and International Stem Cell Corporation…or ANY other research lab in the world that has achieved 97% dopamine-releasing cells. We (and others) would be interested in learning more about Dr Kerns amazing claim.
The International Stem Cell Corporation clinical trial is ongoing. For more details about this second ongoing clinical trial, please click here.
So what do we know about the new clinical study?
The clinical trial (Titled: A Phase I/II, Open-Label Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Striatum Transplantation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells-derived Neural Precursor Cells in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease) will take place at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University in Henan province.
The researchers are planning to inject neuronal-precursor cells derived from embryonic stem cell into the brains of individuals with Parkinson’s disease. They have 10 subjects that they have found to be well matched to the cells that they will be injecting, which will help to limit the chance of the cells being rejected by the body.
- Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, as assessed by brain imaging and blood examination at 6 months post transplant.
Number of subjects with adverse events (such as the evidence of transplant failure or rejection)
In addition to these, there will also be a series of secondary outcome measures, which will include:
- Change in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score at 12 months post surgery, when compared to baseline scores. Each subject was independently rated by two observers at each study visit and a mean score was calculated for analysis.
- Change in DATscan brain imaging at 12 months when compared to a baseline brain scan taken before surgery. DATscan imaging provides an indication of dopamine processing.
- Change in Hoehn and Yahr Stage at 12 months, compared to baseline scores. The Hoehn and Yahr scale is a commonly used system for Parkinson’s disease.
The trial will be a single group, non-randomized analysis of the safety and efficacy of the cells. The estimated date of completion is December 2020.
Why are some researchers concerned about the study?
Professor Qi Zhou, a stem-cell specialist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Zoology will be leading the study and he has a REALLY impressive track record in the field of stem cell biology. His team undertaking this study have a great deal of experience working with embryonic stem cells, having published some extremely impressive research on this topic. But, (and it’s a big but) they have published a limited amount of research in peer-reviewed journals on cell transplantation in models of Parkinson’s disease. Lorenz Studer is one of the leading scientists in this field, was quoted in an editorial in the journal Nature this week:
“Lorenz Studer, a stem-cell biologist at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has spent years characterizing such neurons ahead of his own planned clinical trials, says that “support is not very strong” for the use of precursor cells. “I am somewhat surprised and concerned, as I have not seen any peer-reviewed preclinical data on this approach,” he says.” (Source)
In addition to the lack of published research by the team undertaking the trial, the research community is also worried about the type of cells that are going to be transplanted in this clinical trial. Most of the research groups heading towards clinical trials in this area are all pushing embryonic stem cells towards a semi-differentiated state. That is, they are working on recipes that help the embryonic stem cells grow to the point that they have almost become dopamine neurons. Prof Zhou and his colleagues, however, are planning to transplant a much less differentiated type of cell called a neural-precursor cell in their transplants.
Neuronal-precursor cells. Source: Wired
Neuronal-precursors are very early stage brain cells. They are most likely being used in the study because they will survive the transplantation procedure better than a more mature neurons which would be more sensitive to the process – thus hopefully increasing the yield of surviving cells. But we are not sure how the investigators are planning to orient the cells towards becoming dopamine neurons at such an early stage of their development. Neuronal-precursors could basically become any kind of brain cell. How are the researchers committing them to become dopamine neurons?
Are these concerns justified?
We feel that there are justified reasons for concern.
While Prof Zhou and his colleagues have a great deal of experience with embryonic stem cells and have published very impressive research on that topic, the preclinical data for this trial is limited. In 2015, the research group published this report:
Title: Lmx1a enhances the effect of iNSCs in a PD model
Authors: Wu J, Sheng C, Liu Z, Jia W, Wang B, Li M, Fu L, Ren Z, An J, Sang L, Song G, Wu Y, Xu Y, Wang S, Chen Z, Zhou Q, Zhang YA.
Journal: Stem Cell Res. 2015 Jan;14(1):1-9.
PMID: 25460246 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers engineered embryonic stem cells to over-produce a protein called LMX1A to help produce dopamine neurons. LMX1A is required for the development of dopamine neurons (Click here to read more about this). The investigators then grew these cells in cell culture and compared their ability to develop into dopamine neurons against embryonic stem cells with normal levels of LMX1A. After 14 days in cell culture, 16% of the LMX1A cells were dopamine neurons, compared to only 5% of the control cells.
When the investigators transplanted these cells into a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease, they found that the behavioural recovery in the mice did not differ from the control injected mice, and when they looked at the brains of the mice 11 weeks after transplantation “very few engrafted cells had survived”.
In addition to this previously published work, the Chinese team do have unpublished research on 15 monkeys that have undergone the neuronal-precursor cell transplantation procedure having had Parkinson’s disease induced using a neurotoxin. The researchers have admitted that they initially did not see any improvements in movement (which is expected given the slow maturation of the cells). At the end of the first year, however, they examined the brains of some of the monkeys and they found that the transplanted stem cells had turned into dopamine-releasing cells (exactly what percentage of the cells were dopamine neurons is yet to be announced). The monkey study has been running for several years now and they have seen a 50% improvement in the motor ability of the remaining monkeys, supported by brain imaging data. The publication of this research is in preparation, but it probably won’t be available until after the trial has started.
So yes, there is a limited amount of preclinical research supporting the clinical trial.
As for concerns regarding the type of cells that are going to be transplanted:
Embryonic stem cells have robust tumour forming potential. If you inject them into the brain of mice, there is the potential for them to develop into dopamine neurons, but also tumours:
Title: Embryonic stem cells develop into functional dopaminergic neurons after transplantation in a Parkinson rat model
Authors: Bjorklund LM, Sánchez-Pernaute R, Chung S, Andersson T, Chen IY, McNaught KS, Brownell AL, Jenkins BG, Wahlestedt C, Kim KS, Isacson O.
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2344-9.
PMID: 11782534 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you want to read it)
In this study, the researchers found that of the twenty-five rats that received embryonic stem cell injections into their brains to correct the modelled Parkinson’s disease, five rats died before completed behavioural assessment and the investigators found teratoma-like tumours in their brains – less than 16 weeks after the cells had been transplanted.
A teratoma (white spot) inside a human brain. Source: Radiopaedia
Given this risk of tumour formation, research groups in the cell transplantation field have been trying to push the embryonic stem cells as far away from their original pluripotent state and as close to a dopamine fate as possible without producing mature dopamine neurons which will not survive the transplantation procedure very well.
Prof Zhou’s less mature neuronal-precursor cells are closer to embryonic stem cells than dopamine neurons on this spectrum than the kinds of cells other research groups are testing in cell transplantation experiments. As a result, we are curious to know what precautions the investigators are taking to limit the possibility of an undifferentiated, still pluripotent embryonic stem cell from slipping into this study (the consequences could be disastrous). And given their results from the LMX1A study described above, we are wondering how they are planning to push the cells towards a dopamine fate. If they do not have answers to this issues, they should not be rushing to the clinic with these cells.
So yes, there are reasons for concern regarding the cells that the researchers plan to use in this clinical trial.
And, as with the International Stem Cell Corporation stem cell trial in Australia, we also worry that the follow up-period (or endpoint in the study) of 12 months is not long enough to determine the efficacy of these cells in improving Parkinson’s rating scores and brain imaging results. All of the previous clinical research in this field indicates that the transplanted cells require years of maturation before their dopamine production has an observable impact on the participant. Using 12 months as an end point for this study is tempting a negative result when the long term outcome could be positive.
As we mentioned above, any negative outcomes for these studies could have dire consequences for the field as a whole.
So what does it all mean?
Embryonic stem cells hold huge potential in the field of regenerative medicine. Their ability to become any cell type in the body means that if we can learn how to control them correctly, these cells could represent a fantastic new tool for future cell replacement therapies in conditions like Parkinson’s disease.
Strong demand for such therapies from groups like the Parkinsonian community, has resulted in research groups rushing to the clinic with different approaches using these cells. Concerns as to whether such approaches are ready for the clinic are warranted, if only because mistakes by individual research groups/consortiums in the past have caused delays for everyone in the field.
While China is very keen (and should be encouraged) to take bold steps in its ambition to be a world leader in this field, open and transparent access to extensive preclinical research would help assuage concerns within the research community that prudent care is being taken heading forward.
We’ll keep you aware of developments in this clinical trial.
EDITORIAL NOTE No.1 – It is important for all readers of this post to appreciate that cell transplantation for Parkinson’s disease is still experimental. Anyone declaring otherwise (or selling a procedure based on this approach) should not be trusted. While we appreciate the desperate desire of the Parkinson’s community to treat the disease ‘by any means possible’, bad or poor outcomes at the clinical trial stage for this technology could have serious consequences for the individuals receiving the procedure and negative ramifications for all future research in the stem cell transplantation area.
EDITORIAL NOTE No.2 – the author of this blog is associated with research groups conducting the current Transeuro transplantation trials and the proposed G-Force embryonic stem cell trials planned for 2018. He has endeavoured to present an unbiased coverage of the news surrounding the current clinical trials, though he shares the concerns of the Parkinson’s scientific community that the research supporting the current Australian trial is lacking in its thoroughness and will potentially jeopardise future work in this area. He is also concerned by the lack of peer-reviewed published research on cell transplantation in models of Parkinson’s disease for the proposed clinical studies in China.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Ozy