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
For the vast majority of the general population, science is consumed via mass media head lines and carefully edited summaries of the research.
The result of this simplified end product is an ignorance of the process that researchers need to deal with in order to get their research in the public domain.
As part of our efforts to educate the general public about the scientific research of Parkinson’s disease, it is necessary to also make them aware of that process, the issues associated with it, and how it is changing over time.
In todays post, we will look at how new research reports are being made available to the public domain before they are published.
Getting research into the public domain. Source: STAT
Every morning here at the SoPD, we look at what new research has entered the public domain over night and try to highlight some of the Parkinson’s disease relevant bits on our Twitter account (@ScienceofPD).
To the frustration of many of our followers, however, much of that research sits behind the pay-to-view walls of big publishing houses. One is allowed to read the abstract of the research report in most cases, but not the full report.
Given that charity money and tax payer dollars are paying for much of the research being conducted, and for the publication fee (approx. $1500 per report on average) to get the report into the journal, there is little debate as to the lack of public good in such a system. To make matter worse, many of the scientists doing the research can not access the published research reports, because their universities and research institutes can not afford the hefty access fees for all of the journals.
To be fair, the large publishing houses have recognised that this is not a sustainable business model, and they have put forward the development of open-access web-based science journals, such as Nature communications, Scientific reports, and Cell reports. But the fees for publishing in these journals can in some cases be higher than the closed access publications.
This is crazy. What can we do about it?
Well, there have been efforts for some time to improve the situation.
Projects like the Public Library of Science (or PLOS) have been very popular and are now becoming a real force on the scientific publishing landscape (they recently celebrated their 10 year anniversary and during that time they have published more than 165,000 research articles). But they too have costs associated with maintaining their service and publications fees can still be significant.
Is there an easier way of making this research available?
So this is Prof Paul Ginsparg.
Looks like the mad scientist type right? Don’t be fooled. He’s awesome! Prof Ginsparg is a professor of Physics and Computing & Information Science at Cornell University.
Back in 1991, he started a repository of pre-print publications in the field of physics. The repository was named arXiv.org, and it allowed physics researchers to share and comment on each others research reports before they were actually published.
The site slowly became an overnight sensation.
The number of manuscripts deposited at arXiv passed the half-million mark on October 3, 2008, the million manuscript mark by the end of 2014 (with a submission rate of more than 8,000 manuscripts per month). The site currently has 1,257,315 manuscripts that are freely available to access. A future nobel prize winning bit of research is probably in there!
Now, by their very nature, and in a very general sense, biomedical researchers are a jealous bunch.
For many years they looked on with envy at the hive of activity going on at arXiv and wished that they had something like it themselves. And now they do! In November 2013, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York launched BioRxiv.
And the website is very quickly becoming a popular destination: by April 21, 2017, >10,000 manuscript had been posted, at a current rate of over 800 manuscripts per month (Source).
Recently they got a huge nod of financial support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative – a foundation set up by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan to “advance human potential and promote equality in areas such as health, education, scientific research and energy” (Wikipedia).
So what is bioRxiv?
bioRxiv is a free OPEN ACCESS service that allows researchers to submit draft copies of scientific papers — called preprints — for their colleagues to read and comment on before they are actually published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Here are two videos explaining the idea:
Sounds great right?
To demonstrate how the bioRxiv process works, we have selected an interesting manuscript from the database that we would like to review here on the SoPD.
This is the article:
Title: In Vivo Phenotyping Of Parkinson-Specific Stem Cells Reveals Increased a-Synuclein Levels But No Spreading
Authors: Hemmer K, Smits LM, Bolognin S, Schwamborn JC
PMID: N/A (You can access the manuscript by clicking here)
In this study (which was posted on bioRxiv on the 19th May, 2017), the researchers have acquired skin cells from an 81 year old female with Parkinson’s disease who carries a mutation (G2019S) in the LRRK2 gene.
Mutations in the Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (or Lrrk2) gene are associated with an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. The most common mutation of LRRK2 gene is G2019S, which is present in 5–6% of all familial cases of Parkinson’s disease, and is also present in 1–2% of all sporadic cases. We have previously discussed Lrrk2 (Click here to read that post).
The structure of Lrrk2 and where various mutations lie. Source: Intech
The skin cells were transformed using a bit of biological magic in induced pluripotent stem (or IPS) cells. We have previously discussed IPS cells and how they are created (Click here to read that post). By changing a subjects skin cell into a stem cell, researchers can grow the cell into any type of cell and then investigate a particular disease on a very individualised basis (the future of personalised medicine don’t you know).
IPS cell options available to Parkinson’s disease. Source: Nature
Using this IPS cell with a mutation in the LRRK2 gene, the researchers behind todays manuscript next grew the cells in culture and encouraged the cells to become dopamine producing cells (these are some of the most vulnerable cells in Parkinson’s disease). The investigators had previously shown that neurons grown in culture from cells with the G2019S mutation in the LRRK2 gene have elevated levels of of the Parkinson’s disease protein alpha Synuclein (Click here to read that OPEN ACCESS paper).
In this present study, the investigators wanted to know if these cells would also have elevated levels of alpha synuclein when transplanted into the brain. Their results indicate that the cells did. Next, the investigators wanted to use this transplantation model to see if the high levels of alpha synuclein in the transplanted cells would lead to the protein being passed to neighbouring cells.
Why did they want to do that?
One of the current theories regarding the mechanisms underlying the progressive spread of Parkinson’s disease is that the protein alpha synuclein is lead culprit. Under normal conditions, alpha synuclein usually floats around as an individual protein (or monomer), but sometime it starts to cluster (or aggregate) with other monomers of alpha synuclein and these form what we call oligomers. These oligomers are believed to be a toxic form of alpha synuclein that is being passed from cell to cell. And it ‘seeds’ the disease in each cell it is passed on to (Click here for a very good OPEN ACCESS review of this topic).
There have been postmortem analysis studies of the brains from people with Parkinson’s who have had cell transplantation therapy back in the 1990s. The analysis shows that some of the transplanted cells have evidence of toxic alpha synuclein in them – some of those cells have Lewy bodies in them, suggesting that the disease has been passed on to the healthy introduced cells from the diseased brain (Click here for the OPEN ACCESS research report about this).
In the current bioRxiv study, the investigators wanted to ask the reverse question:
Can unhealthy, toxic alpha synuclein producing cells cause the disease to spread into a healthy brain?
So after transplanted the Lrrk2 mutant cells into the brains of mice, they waited 11 weeks to see if the alpha synuclein would be passed on to the surrounding brain. According to their results, the unhealthy alpha synuclein did not transfer. They found no increase in levels of alpha synuclein in the cells surrounding the transplanted cells. The researchers concluded that within the parameters of their experiment, Parkinson’s disease-associated alpha synuclein spreading was not detected.
Interesting. When will this manuscript be published in a scientific journal?
We have no idea.
One sad truth of the old system of publication is: it may never be.
And this illustrates one of the beautiful features of bioRxiv.
This manuscript is probably going through the peer-review process at a particular scientific journal at the moment in order for it to be properly published. It is a process that will take several months. Independent reviewers will provide a critique of the work and either agree that it is ready for publication, suggest improvements that should be made before it can be published, or reject it outright due to possible flaws or general lack of impact (depending on the calibre of the journal – the big journals seem to only want sexy science). It is a brutal procedure and some manuscripts never actually survive it to get published, thus depriving the world of what should be freely available research results.
And this is where bioRxiv provides us with a useful forum to present scientific biological research that may never reach publication. Perhaps the researchers never actually intended to publish their findings, and just wanted to let the world know that someone had attempted the experiment and these are the results they got (there is a terrible bias in the world of research publishing to only publish positive results).
The point is: with bioRxiv we can have free access to the research before it is published and we do not have to wait for the slow peer-review process.
And there is definitely some public good in that.
EDITORS NOTE HERE: We are not suggesting for a second that the peer-review process should be done away with. The peer-review process is an essential and necessary aspect of scientific research, which helps to limit fraud and inaccuracies in the science being conducted.
What does it all mean?
This post may be boring for some of our regular readers, but it is important for everyone to understand that there are powerful forces at work in the background of scientific research that will determine the future of how information is disseminated to both the research community and general population. It is useful to be aware of these changes.
We hope that some of our readers will be bold/adventurous and have a look at some of what is on offer in the BioRxiv database. Maybe not now, but in the future. It will hopefully become a tremendous resource.
And we certainly encourage fellow researchers to use it (most of the big journals now accept preprint manuscripts being made available on sites like bioRxiv – click here to see a list of the journals that accept this practise) and some journals also allow authors to submit their manuscript directly to a journal’s submission system through bioRxiv via the bioRxiv to Journals (B2J) initiative (Click here for a list of the journals accepting this practise).
The times they are a changing…
The banner for today’s post was sourced from ScienceMag
Being a proud kiwi, I am happy to highlight and support any research coming out of New Zealand.
Recently a new commentary has been published suggesting that living in the NZ city of Rotorua (‘Roto-Vegas‘ to the locals) may decrease the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
In today’s post, we will review the research behind the idea and discuss what it could mean for people with neurodegenerative conditions, like Parkinson’s disease.
The geothermal wonderlands of Rotorua. Source: Audleytravel
Rotorua is a small city in the central eastern area of the North Island of New Zealand (Aotearoa in the indigenous Māori language).
The name Rotorua comes from the Māori language (‘roto’ meaning lake and rua meaning ‘two’). The full Māori name for the spot is actually Te Rotorua-nui-a-Kahumatamomoe. The early Māori chief and explorer Ihenga named it after his uncle Kahumatamomoe. But given that it was the second major lake found in Aotearoa (after lake Taupo in the centre of the North Island), the name that stuck was Rotorua or ‘Second lake’.
Maori culture. Source: TamakiMaoriVillage
Similar to lake Taupo, Rotorua is a caldera resulting from an ancient volcanic eruption (approximately 240,000 years ago). The lake that now fills it is about 22 km (14 mi) in diameter.
Lake Rotorua. Source: Teara
The volcano may have disappeared, but the surrounding region is still full of geothermal activity (bubbling mud pools and geysers), providing the region with abundant renewable power and making the city a very popular tourist destination.
Tourist playing with mud. Source: Rotoruanz
Before visiting the city, however, travellers should be warned that Rotorua’s other nicknames include “Sulphur City” and “Rotten-rua”, because of the smell that results from the geothermal activity.
And speaking from personal experience, the “rotten eggs” smell is prevalent.
Interesting, but what has this got to do with the science of Parkinson’s disease?
Well, the rotten egg smell is the result of hydrogen sulfide emissions, and recently it has been suggested that this pungent gas may be having positive benefits on people, particularly with regards to Parkinson’s disease.
This idea has been proposed by Dr Yusuf Cakmak at the University of Otago in a recent commentary:
Title: Rotorua, hydrogen sulphide and Parkinson’s disease-A possible beneficial link?
Author: Cakmak Y.
Journal: N Z Med J. 2017 May 12;130(1455):123-125.
In his write up, Dr Cakmak points towards two studies that have been conducted on people from Rotorua. The first focused on examining whether there was any association between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and exposure to hydrogen sulfide in Rotorua. By examining air samples and 1,204 participants, the investigators of that study no association (the report of that study is OPEN ACCESS and can be found by clicking here).
The second study is the more interesting of the pair:
Title: Chronic ambient hydrogen sulfide exposure and cognitive function.
Authors: Reed BR, Crane J, Garrett N, Woods DL, Bates MN.
Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2014 Mar-Apr;42:68-76.
PMID: 24548790 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the investigators recruited 1,637 adults (aged 18-65 years) from Rotorua. They conducted neuropsychological tests on the subjects, measuring visual and verbal episodic memory, attention, fine motor skills, psychomotor speed and mood. The average amount of time the participants had lived in the Rotorua region was 18 years (ranging from 3-64 years). The researchers also made measurements of hydrogen sulfide levels at the participants homes and work sites.
While the researchers found no association between hydrogen sulfide exposure and cognitive ability, they did notice something interesting in the measures of fine motor skills: individuals exposed to higher levels of hydrogen sulfide displayed faster motor response times on tasks like finger tapping. Finger tapping speed is an important part of Parkinson’s Motor Rating Scale examination tests.
The investigators behind the study concluded that the levels of hydrogen sulfide in Rotorua do not have any detrimental effect on the individuals living in the area,
Dr Cakmak, however, wondered whether “relatively high, but safe, hydrogen sulfide levels in Rotorua could help protect the degradation of dopaminergic neurons associated with Parkinson’s Disease?” (based on the better performance on the motor response time).
Hang on a second, what exactly is hydrogen sulfide?
Hydrogen sulfide (chemical symbol: H2S) is a colourless gas. Its production often results from the the breaking down of organic material in the absence of oxygen, such as in sewers (this process is called anaerobic digestion. It also occurs in volcanic and geothermal conditions.
H2S. Source: Wikipedia
About 15 years ago, it was found in various organs in the body and termed a gasotransmitter. A gasotransmitter is a molecule that can be used to transmit chemical signals from one cell to another, which results in certain physiological reactions (oxygen, for example, is a gasotransmitter).
Hydrogen sulfide is now known to be cardioprotective (protection of the heart), and many years of research have demonstrated beneficial aspects of using it in therapy, such as vasodilation and lowering blood pressure, increasing levels of antioxidants, inhibiting inflammation, and activation of anti-apoptotic (anti-cell death) pathways. For a good review of hydrogen sulfide’s cardioprotective properties – click here.
The demonstration of the protective properties of hydrogen sulfide in other bodily organs have led neuroscientists to start investigating whether these same benefits could be utilised in treating disorders of the brain.
And the good news is: hydrogen sulfide can have positive benefits in the brain – Click here for a good review of the brain-related research.
Has other research been conducted on hydrogen sulfide regarding Parkinson’s disease?
Yes. And here is where the story starts to get really interesting.
Then hydrogen sulfide was tested in rodent models of Parkinson’s disease:
Title: Neuroprotective effects of hydrogen sulfide on Parkinson’s disease rat models.
Authors: Hu LF, Lu M, Tiong CX, Dawe GS, Hu G, Bian JS.
Journal: Aging Cell. 2010 Apr;9(2):135-46.
PMID: 20041858 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers firstly looked at what happens to hydrogen sulfide in the brains of rodent models of Parkinson’s disease. When rats were injected with a neurotoxin (6-OHDA) that kills dopamine neurons, the investigators found a significant drop in the level of hydrogen sulfide in the region where the dopamine cells reside (called the substantia nigra – an area of the brain severely affected in Parkinson’s disease).
Next the researchers gave some rodents the neurotoxin, waited three weeks and then began administering sodium hydrosulfide – which is a hydrogen sulfide donor – every day for a further 3 weeks. They found that this treatment significantly reduced the dopamine cell loss, motor problems and inflammation in the sodium hydrosulfide treated animals. Interestingly, they saw the same neuroprotective effect when they repeated the study with a different neurotoxin (Rotenone). The investigators concluded that hydrogen sulfide “has potential therapeutic value for treatment of Parkinson’s disease”.
And this first study was followed up one year later by a study investigating inhaled hydrogen sulfide:
Title: Inhaled hydrogen sulfide prevents neurodegeneration and movement disorder in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Kida K, Yamada M, Tokuda K, Marutani E, Kakinohana M, Kaneki M, Ichinose F.
Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011 Jul 15;15(2):343-52.
PMID: 21050138 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the investigators gave mice a neurotoxin (MPTP) and then had them breathe air with or without hydrogen sulfide (40 ppm) for 8 hours per day for one week. The mice that inhaled hydrogen sulfide displayed near normal levels of motor behaviour performance and significantly reduced levels of neurodegeneration (dopamine cell loss).
Inhalation of hydrogen sulfide also prevented the MPTP-induced activation of the brain’s helper cells (microglia and astrocytes) and increased levels of detoxification enzymes and antioxidant proteins (including heme oxygenase-1 and glutamate-cysteine ligase). Curiously, hydrogen sulfide inhalation did not significantly affect levels of reduced glutathione (we will come back to this in an upcoming post).
These first two preclinical results have been replicated many times now confirming the initial findings (Click here, here, here and here for examples). The researchers of the second ‘inhalation’ study concluded the study by suggesting that the potential therapeutic effects of hydrogen sulfide inhalation now needed to be examined in more disease relevant models of Parkinson’s disease.
And this is exactly what researchers did next:
Title: Sulfhydration mediates neuroprotective actions of parkin.
Authors: Vandiver MS, Paul BD, Xu R, Karuppagounder S, Rao F, Snowman AM, Ko HS, Lee YI, Dawson VL, Dawson TM, Sen N, Snyder SH.
Journal: Nat Commun. 2013;4:1626. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2623.
PMID: 23535647 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
The researchers conducting this study were interested in the interaction of hydrogen sulfide with the Parkinson’s disease-associated protein Parkin (also known as PARK2). They found that hydrogen sulfide actively modified parkin protein – a process called sulfhydration – and that this enhances the protein’s level of activity.
They also noted that the level of Parkin sulfhydration in the brains of patients with Parkinson’s disease is markedly reduced (a 60% reduction). These finding imply that drugs that increase levels of hydrogen sulfide in the brain may be therapeutic.
Interestingly, cells with genetic mutations in another Parkinson’s disease related gene, DJ-1, also produce less hydrogen sulfide (click here to read more about this).
Has anyone ever looked at hydrogen sulfide and alpha synuclein?
Not that we are aware of.
Alpha synuclein is the Parkinson’s disease associated protein that clusters in the Parkinsonian brain and forms Lewy bodies.
But researchers have looked at hydrogen sulfide and amyloid formation:
Title: Hydrogen sulfide inhibits amyloid formation
Authors: Rosario-Alomar MF, Quiñones-Ruiz T, Kurouski D, Sereda V, Ferreira EB, Jesús-Kim LD, Hernández-Rivera S, Zagorevski DV, López-Garriga J, Lednev IK.
Journal: J Phys Chem B. 2015 Jan 29;119(4):1265-74.
PMID: 25545790 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
Amyloid formations are large clusters of misfolded proteins that are associated with neurodegenerative conditions, like Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. The researchers who conducted this study were interested in the behaviour of these misfolded protein in the presence of hydrogen sulfide. What they found was rather remarkable: the addition of hydrogen sulfide completely inhibited the formation amyloid fibrils (amyloid fibril plaques are found in brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease).
If the addition of hydrogen sulfide can reduce the level of clustered proteins in a model of Alzheimer’s disease, it would be interesting to see what it would do to alpha synuclein.
NOTE: Hydrogen sulfide levels are also reduced in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease (click here to read more on this topic)
Has hydrogen sulfide ever been tested in the clinic?
There are currently 17 clinical trials investigating hydrogen sulfide in various conditions (not Parkinson’s disease though).
So where can I get me some of that hydrogen sulfide?
Ok, so here is where we come in with the health warning section.
You see, hydrogen sulfide is a very dangerous gas. It is really not to be played with.
The gas is both corrosive and flammable. More importantly, at high concentrations, hydrogen sulfide gas can be fatal almost immediately (>1000 parts per milllion – source: OSHA). And the gas only exhibits the “rotten eggs” smell at low concentrations. At higher concentrations it becomes undetectable due to olfactory paralysis (luckily for the folks in Rotorua, the levels of hydrogen sulfide gas there are between 20-25 parts per billion).
Thus, we do not recommend readers to rush out and load up on hydrogen sulfide gas.
There are many foods that contain hydrogen sulfide.
For example, garlic is very rich in hydrogen sulfide. Another rich source is cooked beef, which has about 0.6mg of hydrogen sulfide per pound – cooked lamb has closer to 0.9 milligrams per pound. Heated dairy products, such as skim milk, can have approximately 3 milligrams of hydrogen sulfide per gallon, and cream has slightly more than double that amount.
Any significant change in diet by a person with Parkinson’s disease should firstly be discussed with a trained medical physician as we can not be sure what impact such a change would have on individualised treatment regimes.
What does it all mean?
Summing up: It would be interesting to look at the frequency of Parkinson’s disease in geothermal region of the world (the population of Rotorua is too small for such an analysis – 80,000 people).
Researchers believe that components of the gas emissions from these geothermal areas may be neuroprotective. Of particular interest is the gas hydrogen sulfide. At high levels, it is a very dangerous gas. At lower levels, however, researchers have shown that hydrogen sulfide has many beneficial properties, including in models of neurodegenerative conditions. These findings have led many to propose testing hydrogen sulfide in clinical trials for conditions like Parkinson’s disease.
Dr Cakmak, who we mentioned near the top of this post, goes one step further. He hypothesises that hydrogen sulfide may actually be one of the active components in the neuroprotective affect of both coffee and smoking – and with good reason. It was recently demonstrated that the certain gut bacteria, such as Prevotella, are decreased in people with Parkinson’s disease (see our post on this topic by clicking here). The consumption of coffee has been shown to help improve the Prevotella population in the gut, which may in term increase the levels of Prevotella-derived hydrogen sulfide. Similarly smokers have a decreased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and hydrogen sulfide is a component of cigarette smoke.
All of these ideas still needs to be further tested, but we are curious to see where this research could lead. An inhaled neuroprotective treatment for Parkinson’s disease may have benefits for other neurodegenerative conditions.
Oh, and if anyone is interested, we are happy to put readers in contact with real estate agents in sunny ‘Rotten-rua’, New Zealand. The locals say that you gradually get used to the smell.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Under absolutely no circumstances should anyone reading this material consider it medical advice. The material provided here is for educational purposes only. Before considering or attempting any change in your treatment regime, PLEASE consult with your doctor or neurologist. While some of the drugs/molecules discussed on this website are clinically available, they may have serious side effects. We therefore urge caution and professional consultation before any attempt to alter a treatment regime. SoPD can not be held responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided here.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Trover
The general population are wrong to look up to scientists as the holders of the keys to some kind of secret knowledge that allows them to render magic on a semi-irregular basis.
All too often, the great discoveries are made by accident.
A while back, some researchers from Germany and Brazil made an interesting discovery that could have important implications for Parkinson’s disease. But they only made this discovery because their mice were feed the wrong food.
Today we’ll review their research and discuss what it could mean for Parkinson’s disease.
Sir Alexander Fleming. Source: Biography
Sir Alexander Fleming is credited with discovering the antibiotic properties of penicillin.
But, as it is often pointed out, that the discovery was a purely chance event – an accident, if you like.
After returning from a two week holiday, Sir Fleming noticed that many of his culture dishes were contaminated with fungus, because he had not stored them properly before leaving. One mould in particular caught his attention, however, as it was growing on a culture plate with the bacteria staphylococcus. Upon closer examination, Fleming noticed that the contaminating fungus prevented the growth of staphylococci.
In an article that Fleming subsequently published in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology in 1929, he wrote, “The staphylococcus colonies became transparent and were obviously undergoing lysis … the broth in which the mould had been grown at room temperature for one to two weeks had acquired marked inhibitory, bactericidal and bacteriolytic properties to many of the more common pathogenic bacteria.”
Penicillin in a culture dish of staphylococci. Source: NCBI
Fleming isolated the organism responsible for prohibiting the growth of the staphylococcus, and identified it as being from the penicillium genus.
He named it penicillin and the rest is history.
Fleming himself appreciated the serendipity of the finding:
“When I woke up just after dawn on Sept. 28, 1928, I certainly didn’t plan to revolutionise all medicine by discovering the world’s first antibiotic, or bacteria killer. But I guess that was exactly what I did.” (Source)
And this gave rise to his famous quote:
“One sometimes finds what one is not looking for” (Source)
While Fleming’s discovery of the antibiotic properties of penicillin was made as he was working on a completely different research problem, the important thing to note is that the discovery was made because the evidence came to a prepared mind.
Pasteur knew the importance of a prepared mind. Source: Thequotes
And this is the purpose of all the training in scientific research – not acquiring ‘the keys to some secret knowledge’, but preparing the investigator to notice the curious deviation.
That’s all really interesting. But what does any of this have to do with Parkinson’s disease?
- Prepared minds
Five years ago, a group of Brazilian and German Parkinson’s disease researchers made a serendipitous discovery:
While modelling Parkinson’s disease in some mice, they noticed that only two of the 40 mice that were given a neurotoxic chemical (6-OHDA) developed the motor features of Parkinson’s disease, while the rest remained healthy. This result left them scratching their heads and trying to determine what had gone wrong.
Then it clicked:
“A lab technician realised the mice had mistakenly been fed chow containing doxycycline, so we decided to investigate the hypothesis that it might have protected the neurons.” (from the press release).
The researchers had noted the ‘curious deviation’ and decided to investigate it further.
They repeated the experiment, but this time they added another group of animals which were given doxycycline in low doses (via injection) and fed on normal food (not containing the doxycycline).
And guess what: both group demonstrated neuroprotection!
Hang on a second. Two questions: 1. What exactly is 6-OHDA?
6-hydroxydopamine (or 6-OHDA) is one of several chemicals that researchers use to cause dopamine cells to die in an effort to model the cell death seen in Parkinson’s disease. It shares many structural similarities with the chemical dopamine (which is so severely affected in the Parkinson’s disease brain), and as such it is readily absorbed by dopamine cells who unwittingly assume that they are re-absorbing excess dopamine.
Once inside the cell, 6-OHDA rapidly transforms (via oxidisation) into hydrogen peroxide (H2O2 – the stuff folk bleach their hair with) and para-quinone (AKA 1,4-Benzoquinone). Neither of which the dopamine neurons like very much. Hydrogen peroxide in particular quickly causes massive levels of ‘oxidative stress’, resulting in the cell dying.
Transformation of the neurotoxin 6-OHDA. Source: NCBI
Think of 6-OHDA as a trojan horse, being absorbed by the cell because it looks like dopamine, only for the cell to work out (too late) that it’s not.
Ok, and question 2. What is doxycycline?
Doxycycline is an antibiotic that is used in the treatment of a number of types of infections caused by bacteria.
Remind me again, what is an antibiotic?
Antibiotics are a class of drugs that either kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria. They function in one of several ways, either blocking the production of bacterial proteins, inhibiting the replication of bacterial DNA (nuclei acid in the image below), or by rupturing/inhibiting the repair of the bacteria’s outer membrane/wall.
The ways antibiotics function. Source: FastBleep
So the researchers accidentally discovered that the a bacteria-killing drug called doxycycline prevented a trojan horse called 6-OHDA from killing dopamine cells?
And then these prepared minds followed up this serendipitous discovery with a series of experiments to investigate the phenomenon further, and they published the results recently in the journal ‘Glial’:
Title: Doxycycline restrains glia and confers neuroprotection in a 6-OHDA Parkinson model.
Authors: Lazzarini M, Martin S, Mitkovski M, Vozari RR, Stühmer W, Bel ED.
Journal: Glia. 2013 Jul;61(7):1084-100. doi: 10.1002/glia.22496. Epub 2013 Apr 17.
In the report of their research, the investigators noted that doxycycline significantly protected the dopamine neurons and their nerve branches (called axons) in the striatum – an area of the brain where dopamine is released – when 6-OHDA was given to mice. Both oral administration and peripheral injections of doxycycline were able to have this effect.
They also reported that doxycycline inhibited the activation of astrocytes and microglial cells in the brains of the 6-OHDA treated mice. Astrocytes and microglial cells are usually the helper cells in the brain, but in the context of disease or injury these cells can quickly take on the role of judge and executioner – no longer supporting the neurons, but encouraging them to die. The researchers found that doxycycline reduced the activity of the astrocytes and microglial cells in this alternative role, allowing the dopamine cells to recuperate and survive.
The researchers concluded that the “neuroprotective effect of doxycycline may be useful in preventing or slowing the progression of Parkinson’s disease”.
Wow, was this the first time this neuroprotective effect of doxycycline has been observed?
We have known of doxycycline’s neuroprotective effects in different models of brain injury since the 1990s (Click here, here and here for more on this). In fact, in their research report, the German and Brazilian researchers kindly presented a table of all the previous neuroprotective research involving doxycycline:
And there was so much of it that the table carried on to a second page:
And as you can see from the table, the majority of these reports found that doxycycline treatment had positive neuroprotective effects.
Is doxycycline the only antibiotic that exhibits neuroprotective properties?
Doxycycline belongs to a family of antibiotics called ‘tetracyclines‘ (named for their four (“tetra-“) hydrocarbon rings (“-cycl-“) derivation (“-ine”)), and other members of this family have also been shown to display neuroprotection in models of Parkinson’s disease:
Title: Minocycline prevents nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurodegeneration in the MPTP model ofParkinson’s disease.
Authors: Du Y, Ma Z, Lin S, Dodel RC, Gao F, Bales KR, Triarhou LC, Chernet E, Perry KW, Nelson DL, Luecke S, Phebus LA, Bymaster FP, Paul SM.
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Dec 4;98(25):14669-74.
PMID: 11724929 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers treated mice with an antibiotic called minocycline and it protected dopamine cells from the damaging effects of a toxic chemical called MPTP (or 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine). MPTP is also used in models of Parkinson’s disease, as it specifically affects the dopamine cells, while leaving other cells unaffected.
The researchers found that the neuroprotective effect of minocycline is associated a reduction in the activity of proteins that initiate cell death (for example, Caspace 1). This left the investigators concluding that ‘tetracyclines may be effective in preventing or slowing the progression of Parkinson’s disease’.
Importantly, this result was quickly followed by two other research papers with very similar results (Click here and here to read more about this). Thus, it would appear that some members of the tetracycline class of antibiotics share some neuroprotective properties.
So what did the Brazilian and German researchers do next with doxycycline?
They continued to investigate the neuroprotective effect of doxycycline in different models of Parkinson’s disease. They also got some Argentinians and Frenchies involved in the studies. And these lines of research led to their recent research report in the journal Scientific Reports:
Title: Repurposing doxycycline for synucleinopathies: remodelling of α-synuclein oligomers towards non-toxic parallel beta-sheet structured species.
Authors: González-Lizárraga F, Socías SB, Ávila CL, Torres-Bugeau CM, Barbosa LR, Binolfi A, Sepúlveda-Díaz JE, Del-Bel E, Fernandez CO, Papy-Garcia D, Itri R, Raisman-Vozari R, Chehín RN.
Journal: Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 3;7:41755.
PMID: 28155912 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers wanted to test doxycycline in a more disease-relevant model of Parkinson’s disease. 6-OHDA is great for screening and testing neuroprotective drugs. But given that 6-OHDA is not involved with the underlying pathology of Parkinson’s disease, it does not provide a great measure of how well a drug will do against the disease itself. So, the researchers turned their attention to our old friend, alpha synuclein – the protein which forms the clusters of protein (called Lewy bodies) in the Parkinsonian brain.
What the researchers found was fascinating: Doxycycline was able to inhibit the disease related clustering of alpha synuclein. In fact, by reshaping alpha synuclein into a less toxic version of the protein, doxycycline was able to enhance cell survival. The investigators also conducted a ‘dosing’ experiment to determine the most effect dose and they found that taking doxycycline in sub-antibiotic doses (20–40 mg/day) would be enough to exert neuroprotection. They concluded their study by suggesting that these novel effects of doxycycline could be exploited in Parkinson’s disease by “repurposing an old safe drug”.
Wow, has doxycycline ever been used in clinical trials for brain-related conditions before?
From 2005-12,there was a clinical study to determine the safety and efficacy of doxycycline (in combination with Interferon-B-1a) in treating Multiple Sclerosis (Click here for more on this trial). The results of that study were positive and can be found here.
More importantly, the other antibiotic to demonstrate neuroprotection in models of Parkinson’s disease, minocycline (which we mentioned above), has been clinically tested in Parkinson’s disease:
Title: A pilot clinical trial of creatine and minocycline in early Parkinson disease: 18-month results.
Authors: NINDS NET-PD Investigators..
Journal: Clin Neuropharmacol. 2008 May-Jun;31(3):141-50.
PMID: 18520981 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
This research report was the follow up of a 12 month clinical study that can be found by clicking here. The researchers had taken two hundred subjects with Parkinson’s disease and randomly sorted them into the three groups: creatine (an over-the-counter nutritional supplement), minocycline, and placebo (control). All of the participants were diagnosed less than 5 years before the start of the study. At 12 months, both creatine and minocycline were noted as not interfering with the beneficial effects of symptomatic therapy (such as L-dopa), but a worrying trend began with subjects dropping out of the minocycline arm of the study.
At the 18 month time point, approximately 61% creatine-treated subjects had begun to take additional treatments (such as L-dopa) for their symptoms, compared with 62% of the minocycline-treated subjects and 60% placebo-treated subjects. This result suggested that there was no beneficial effect from using either creatine or minocycline in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, as neither exhibited any greater effect than the placebo. In addition, the investigators suggested that the decreased tolerability of minocycline was a concern.
Ok, so where do I sign up for the next doxy clinical trial?
Well, the researchers behind the Scientific reports research (discussed above) are hoping to begin planning clinical trials soon.
But theoretically speaking, there shouldn’t be a trial.
There’s a good reason why not.
In fact, if you look at the comments section under the research article, a cautionary message has been left by Prof Paul M. Tulkens of the Louvain Drug Research Institute in Belgium. He points out that:
“…using antibiotics at sub-therapeutic doses is the best way to trigger the emergence of resistance (supported by many in vitro and in vivo studies). Using an antibiotic for other indications than an infection caused by a susceptible bacteria is something that should be discouraged”
And he is correct.
We recklessly over use antibiotics all over the world at the moment and they are one of the few lines of defence that we have against the bacterial world. Long term use (which Parkinson’s disease would probably require) of an antibiotic at sub-therapeutic levels will only encourage the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria (possibly within individuals).
The resistance of bacteria to antibiotics can occur spontaneously via several means (for example, through random genetic mutations during cell division). With the right mutation (inferring antibiotic resistance), an individual bacteria would then have a natural advantage over their friends and it would survive our attempts to kill it with antibiotics. Being resistant to antibiotic would leave that bacteria to wreak havoc upon us.
Its the purest form of natural selection.
How bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Source: Reactgroup
And antibiotic resistant bacteria are fast becoming a major health issue for us, with the number of species of bacteria developing resistance increasing every year (Click here for a good review on factors contributing to the emergence of resistance, and click here for a review of the antibiotic resistant bacteria ‘crisis’).
But don’t be upset on the Parkinson’s disease side of things. Prof Tulken adds that:
“If doxycycline really acts as the authors propose, the molecular targets are probably very different from those causing antibacterial activity. it should therefore be possible to dissociate these effect from the antibacterial effects and to get active compounds devoid of antibacterial activity This is where research must go to rather than in trying to use doxycycline itself.”
And he is correct again.
Rather than tempting disaster, we need to take the more prudent approach.
Independent researchers must now attempt to replicate the neuroprotective results in carefully controlled conditions. At the same time, chemists should conduct an analysis of the structure of doxycycline to determine which parts of it are having this neuroprotective effect.
The structure of doxycycline. Source: Wikipedia
If researchers can isolate those neuroprotective elements and those same parts are separate from the antibiotic properties, then we may well have another experimental drug for treating Parkinson’s disease.
And the good news is that researchers are already reasonably sure that the mechanisms of the neuroprotective effect of doxycycline are distinct from its antimicrobial action.
So what does it all mean?
Researchers have once again identified an old drug that can perform a new trick.
The bacteria killing antibiotic, doxycycline, has a long history of providing neuroprotection in models of brain disease, but recently researchers have demonstrated that doxycycline may have beneficial effects on particular aspects of Parkinson’s disease.
Given that doxycycline is an antibiotic, we must be cautious in our use of it. It will be interesting to determine which components of doxycycline are neuroprotective, and whether other antibiotics share these components. Given the number of researchers now working in this area, it should not take too long.
We’ll let you know when we hear something.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Under absolutely no circumstances should anyone reading this material consider it medical advice. The material provided here is for educational purposes only. Before considering or attempting any change in your treatment regime, PLEASE consult with your doctor or neurologist. While some of the drugs discussed on this website are clinically available, they may have serious side effects. We therefore urge caution and professional consultation before any attempt to alter a treatment regime. SoPD can not be held responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided here.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Youtube
Last week scientists in Sweden published research demonstrating a method by which the supportive cells of the brain (called astrocytes) can be re-programmed into dopamine neurons… in the brain of a live animal!
It was a really impressive trick and it could have major implications for Parkinson’s disease.
In today’s post is a long read, but in it we will review the research leading up to the study, explain the science behind the impressive feat, and discuss where things go from here.
Different types of cells in the body. Source: Dreamstime
In your body at this present moment in time, there is approximately 40 trillion cells (Source).
The vast majority of those cells have developed into mature types of cell and they are undertaking very specific functions. Muscle cells, heart cells, brain cells – all working together in order to keep you vertical and ticking.
Now, once upon a time we believed that the maturation (or the more technical term: differentiation) of a cell was a one-way street. That is to say, once a cell became what it was destined to become, there was no going back. This was biological dogma.
Then a guy in Japan did something rather amazing.
Who is he and what did he do?
This is Prof Shinya Yamanaka:
Prof Shinya Yamanaka. Source: Glastone Institute
He’s a rockstar in the scientific research community.
Prof Yamanaka is the director of Center for induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research and Application (CiRA); and a professor at the Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences at Kyoto University.
But more importantly, in 2006 he published a research report demonstrating how someone could take a skin cell and re-program it so that was now a stem cell – capable of becoming any kind of cell in the body.
Here’s the study:
Title: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors.
Authors: Takahashi K, Yamanaka S.
Journal: Cell. 2006 Aug 25;126(4):663-76.
PMID: 16904174 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
Shinya Yamanaka‘s team started with the hypothesis that genes which are important to the maintenance of embryonic stem cells (the cells that give rise to all cells in the body) might also be able to cause an embryonic state in mature adult cells. They selected twenty-four genes that had been previously identified as important in embryonic stem cells to test this idea. They used re-engineered retroviruses to deliver these genes to mouse skin cells. The retroviruses were emptied of all their disease causing properties, and could thus function as very efficient biological delivery systems.
The skin cells were engineered so that only cells in which reactivation of the embryonic stem cells-associated gene, Fbx15, would survive the testing process. If Fbx15 was not turned on in the cells, they would die. When the researchers infected the cells with all twenty-four embryonic stem cells genes, remarkably some of the cells survived and began to divide like stem cells.
In order to identify the genes necessary for the reprogramming, the researchers began removing one gene at a time from the pool of twenty-four. Through this process, they were able to narrow down the most effective genes to just four: Oct4, Sox2, cMyc, and Klf4, which became known as the Yamanaka factors.
This new type of cell is called an induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cell – ‘pluripotent’ meaning capable of any fate.
The discovery of IPS cells turned biological dogma on it’s head.
And in acknowledgement of this amazing bit of research, in 2012 Prof Yamanaka and Prof John Gurdon (University of Cambridge) were awarded the Nobel prize for Physiology and Medicine for the discovery that mature cells can be converted back to stem cells.
Prof Yamanaka and Prof Gurdon. Source: UCSF
Prof Gurdon achieved the feat in 1962 when he removed the nucleus of a fertilised frog egg cell and replaced it with the nucleus of a cell taken from a tadpole’s intestine. The modified egg cell then grew into an adult frog! This fascinating research proved that the mature cell still contained the genetic information needed to form all types of cells.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We do not want to be accused of taking anything away from Prof Gurdon’s contribution to this field (which was great!) by not mentioning his efforts here. For the sake of saving time and space, we are focusing on Prof Yamanaka’s research as it is more directly related to today’s post.
Making IPS cells. Source: learn.genetics
This amazing discovery has opened new doors for biological research and provided us with incredible opportunities for therapeutic treatments. For example, we can now take skins cells from a person with Parkinson’s disease and turn those cells into dopamine neurons which can then be tested with various drugs to see which treatment is most effective for that particular person (personalised medicine in it’s purest form).
Some of the option available to Parkinson’s disease. Source: Nature
Imagination is literally the only limiting factor with regards to the possible uses of IPS cell technology.
Shortly after Yamanaka’s research was published in 2006, however, the question was asked ‘rather than going back to a primitive state, can we simply change the fate of a mature cell directly?’ For example, turn a skin cell into a neuron.
This question was raised mainly to address the issue of ‘age’ in the modelling disease using IPS cells. Researchers questioned whether an aged mature cell reprogrammed into an immature IPS cell still carried the characteristics of an aged cell (and can be used to model diseases of the aged), or would we have to wait for the new cell to age before we can run experiments on it. Skin biopsies taken from aged people with neurodegenerative conditions may lose the ‘age’ element of the cell and thus an important part of the personalised medicine concept would be lost.
So researchers began trying to ‘re-program’ mature cells. Taking a skin cell and turning it directly into a heart cell or a brain cell.
And this is probably the craziest part of this whole post because they actually did it!
Different methods of inducing skin cells to become something else. Source: Neuron
In 2010, scientists from Stanford University published this report:
Title: Direct conversion of fibroblasts to functional neurons by defined factors
Authors: Vierbuchen T, Ostermeier A, Pang ZP, Kokubu Y, Südhof TC, Wernig M.
Journal: Nature. 2010 Feb 25;463(7284):1035-41.
In this study, the researchers demonstrated that the activation of three genes (Ascl1, Brn2 and Myt1l) was sufficient to rapidly and efficiently convert skin cells into functional neurons in cell culture. They called them ‘iN’ cells’ or induced neuron cells. The ‘re-programmed’ skin cells made neurons that produced many neuron-specific proteins, generated action potentials (the electrical signal that transmits a signal across a neuron), and formed functional connection (or synapses) with neighbouring cells. It was a pretty impressive achievement, which they beat one year later by converting mature liver cells into neurons – Click here to read more on this – Wow!
The next step – with regards to our Parkinson’s-related interests – was to convert skin cells directly into dopamine neurons (the cells most severely affected in the condition).
And guess what:
Title: Direct conversion of human fibroblasts to dopaminergic neurons.
Authors: Pfisterer U, Kirkeby A, Torper O, Wood J, Nelander J, Dufour A, Björklund A, Lindvall O, Jakobsson J, Parmar M
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2011) 108:10343-10348.
PMID: 21646515 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, Swedish researchers confirmed that activation of Ascl1, Brn2, and Myt1l re-programmed human skin cells directly into functional neurons. But then if they added the activation of two additional genes, Lmx1a andFoxA2 (which are both involved in dopamine neuron generation), they could convert skin cells directly into dopamine neurons. And those dopamine neurons displayed all of the correct features of normal dopamine neurons.
With the publication of this research, it suddenly seemed like anything was possible and people began make all kinds of cell types out of skin cells. For a good review on making neurons out of skin cells – Click here.
Given that all of this was possible in a cell culture dish, some researchers started wondering if direct reprogramming was possible in the body. So they tried.
And again, guess what:
Title: In vivo reprogramming of adult pancreatic exocrine cells to beta-cells.
Authors: Zhou Q, Brown J, Kanarek A, Rajagopal J, Melton DA.
Journal: Nature. 2008 Oct 2;455(7213):627-32.
Using the activation of three genes (Ngn3, Pdx1 and Mafa), the investigators behind this study re-programmed differentiated pancreatic exocrine cells in adult mice into cells that closely resemble b-cells. And all of this occurred inside the animals, while the animals were wandering around & doing their thing!
Now naturally, researchers in the Parkinson’s disease community began wondering if this could also be achieved in the brain, with dopamine neurons being produced from re-programmed cells.
And (yet again) guess what:
Title: Generation of induced neurons via direct conversion in vivo
Authors: Torper O, Pfisterer U, Wolf DA, Pereira M, Lau S, Jakobsson J, Björklund A, Grealish S, Parmar M.
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 23;110(17):7038-43.
PMID: 23530235 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the Swedish scientists (behind the previous direct re-programming of skin cells into dopamine neurons) wanted to determine if they could re-program cells inside the brain. Firstly, they engineered skin cells with the three genes (Ascl1, Brn2a, & Myt1l) under the control of a special chemical – only in the presence of the chemical, the genes would be activated. They next transplanted these skin cells into the brains of mice and began adding the chemical to the drinking water of the mice. At 1 & 3 months after transplantation, the investigators found re-programmed cells inside the brains of the mice.
Next, the researchers improved on their recipe for producing dopamine neurons by adding the activation of two further genes: Otx2 and Lmx1b (also important in the development of dopamine neurons). So they were now activating a lot of genes: Ascl1, Brn2a, Myt1l, Lmx1a, FoxA2, Otx2 and Lmx1b. Unfortunately, when these reprogrammed cells were transplanted into the brain, few of them survived to become mature dopamine neurons.
The investigators then ask themselves ‘do we really need to transplant cells? Can’t we just reprogram cells inside the brain?’ And this is exactly what they did! They injected the viruses that allow for reprogramming directly into the brains of mice. The experiment was designed so that the cargo of the viruses would only become active in the astrocyte cells, not neurons. And when the researchers looked in the brains of these mice 6 weeks later, they found numerous re-programmed neurons, indicating that direct reprogramming is possible in the intact brain.
So what was so special about the research published last week about? Why the media hype?
The research published last week, by another Swedish group, took this whole process one step further: Not only did they re-program astrocytes in the brain to become dopamine neurons, but they also did this on a large enough scale to correct the motor issues in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease.
Title: Induction of functional dopamine neurons from human astrocytes in vitro and mouse astrocytes in a Parkinson’s disease model
Authors: di Val Cervo PR, Romanov RA, Spigolon G, Masini D, Martín-Montañez E, Toledo EM, La Manno G, Feyder M, Pifl C, Ng YH, Sánchez SP, Linnarsson S, Wernig M, Harkany T, Fisone G, Arenas E.
Journal: Nature Biotechnology (2017) doi:10.1038/nbt.3835
These researchers began this project 6 years ago with a new cocktail of genes for reprogramming cells to become dopamine neurons. They used the activation of NEUROD1, ASCL1 and LMX1A, and a microRNA miR218 (microRNAs are genes that produce RNA, but not protein – click here for more on this). These genes improved the reprogramming efficiency of human astrocytes to 16% (that is the percentage of astrocytes that were infected with the viruses and went on to became dopamine neurons). The researchers then added some chemicals to the reprogramming process that helps dopamine neurons to develop in normal conditions, and they observed an increase in the level of reprogramming to approx. 30%. And these reprogrammed cells display many of the correct properties of dopamine neurons.
Next the investigators decided to try this conversion inside the brains of mice that had Parkinson’s disease modelled in them (using a neurotoxin). The delivery of the viruses into the brains of these mice resulted in reprogrammed dopamine neurons beginning to appear, and 13 weeks after the viruses were delivered, the researchers observed improvements in the Parkinson’s disease related motor symptoms of the mice. The scientists concluded that with further optimisation, this reprogramming approach may enable clinical therapies for Parkinson’s disease, by the delivery of genes rather than transplanted cells.
How does this reprogramming work?
As we have indicated above, the re-programming utilises re-engineered viruses. They have been emptied of their disease causing elements, allowing us to use them as very efficient biological delivery systems. Importantly, retroviruses infect dividing cells and integrate their ‘cargo’ into the host cell’s DNA.
Retroviral infection and intergration into DNA. Source: Evolution-Biology
The ‘cargo’ in the case of IPS cells, is a copy of the genes that allow reprogramming (such as the Yamanaka genes), which the cell will then start to activate, resulting in the production of protein for those genes. These proteins subsequently go on to activate a variety of genes required for the maintenance of embryonic stem cells (and re-programming of mature cells).
And viruses were also used for the re-programming work in the brain as well.
There is the possibility that one day we will be able to do this without viruses – in 2013, researchers made IPS cells using a specific combination of chemicals (Click here to read more about this) – but at the moment, viruses are the most efficient biological targeting tool we have.
So what does it all mean?
Last week researchers is Sweden published research explaining how they reprogrammed some of the helper cells in the brains of Parkinsonian mice so that they turned into dopamine neurons and helped to alleviate the symptoms the mice were feeling.
This result and the trail of additional results outlined above may one day be looked back upon as the starting point for a whole new way of treating disease and injury to particular organs in the body. Suddenly we have the possibility of re-programming cells in our body to under take a new functions to help combat many of the conditions we suffer.
It is important to appreciate, however, that the application of this technology is still a long way from entering the clinic (a great deal of optimisation is required). But the fact that it is possible and that we can do it, raises hope of more powerful medical therapies for future generations.
As the researchers themselves admit, this technology is still a long way from the clinic. Improving the efficiency of the technique (both the infection of the cells and the reprogramming) will be required as we move down this new road. In addition, we will need to evaluate the long-term consequences of removing support cells (astrocytes) from the carefully balanced system that is the brain. Future innovations, however, may allow us to re-program stronger, more disease-resistant dopamine neurons which could correct the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease without being affected by the disease itself (as may be the case in transplanted cells – click here to read more about this).
Watch for a lot more research coming from this topic.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Greg Dunn (we love his work!)
Recently the SoPD has been contacted by readers asking about this video:
The video presents a news article from Canada describing a clinical study of spinal cord stimulation for Parkinson’s disease.
In today’s post we review what spinal cord stimulation is and what research has been done in Parkinson’s disease.
50 years celebration. Source: Reference
As many readers will be aware from 2017 represents the 200 year anniversary of the first description of Parkinson’s disease by one Mr James Parkinson.
Many readers will not be aware, however, that 2017 is also represents the 50th anniversary of the first use of a technique called spinal cord stimulation:
What is spinal cord stimulation?
An x-ray of the spine with a stimulator implanted (towards the top of the image, and cords leading off to the bottom left). Source: Wikipedia
A spinal cord stimulator involves a small device being used to apply pulsed electrical signals to the spinal cord. It is generally used for pain relief, but it has recently been tested in a variety of other medical conditions.
The device is a column of stimulating electrodes that is surgically implanted in the epidural space of the spine. And before you ask: the epidural space is the area between the outer protective skin of the spinal cord (called the dura mater) and the surrounding vertebrae. So the device lies against the spinal cord, and is protected by the bones that make up the spine (as shown in the image below).
The stimulating electrodes within the epidural space. Source: SpineOne
An electrical pulse generator is implanted in the lower abdomen and conducting wires are connected between the electrodes to the generator. Much like deep brain stimulation, the system is entirely enclosed in the body and operated with a remote control.
How does spinal cord stimulation work?
The stimulation basically interrupts the feeling of pain – blocking it from reaching the brain – substituting it with a more pleasing sensation called paresthesia (a kind of tingling or numbness).
The stimulation does not eliminate the source of pain, it simply masks it by interfering with the signal going to the brain. As a result the amount of relief from pain varies from person to person. In general, spinal cord stimulation resulting in a 50-70% reduction in pain.
But Parkinson’s results from inability to move, how would spinal cord stimulation work in Parkinson’s disease?
Yeah, this is a good question and the answer is not entirely clear, but the researchers (behind the research we discuss below) suggest that beneficial effects from spinal cord stimulation in Parkinson’s disease could be coming from direct activation of ascending pathways reaching thalamic nuclei and the cerebral cortex. That is to say (in plain English): activation of the spinal cord results in a signal going up into the brain where it alters the interaction between two of the regions involved in the initiation of movement (the thalamus and the cortex). And as we shall discuss below, there is evidence backing this idea.
Ok, so how much research has been done on spinal cord stimulation for Parkinson’s disease?
Actually quite a bit (in fact, for a good early review on the topic – click here).
The first real attempt at spinal cord stimulation for Parkinson’s disease was this report here:
Title: Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Locomotion in Animal Models of Parkinson’s Disease
Authors: Fuentes, R., Petersson, P., Siesser, W. B., Caron, M. G., & Nicolelis, M. A. L.
Journal: Science (2009) 323(5921), 1578-1582.
PMID: 19299613 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
It was conducted by Prof Miguel Nicolelis and his colleagues at Duke University. Duke were kind enough to make this short video about the research:
In their research report, the scientists injected mice with a drug that reduced the level of dopamine in the brain (the tyrosine hydroxylase inhibitor alpha-methyl-para-tyrosine or AMPT). Similar to Parkinson’s disease, this resulted in a significant reduction in the movements of those mice. It also resulted in changes in the neuronal activity patterns of cells in an area of the brain called the motor cortex (we have talked about the motor cortex in a previous post). When the researchers then conducted spinal cord stimulation on these mice, they found that stimulation corrected both the loss of movement and the altered activity in the motor cortex.
The researchers then tested spinal cord stimulation in rats which had their dopamine system severely depleted (using the neurotoxin 6-OHDA), and they again found that the treatment could rescue the loss of locomotor ability. Curiously, spinal cord stimulation in the rats also caused an increase in locomotion activity after the stimulation period had stopped. On top of this, the researchers found that spinal cord stimulation aided the effect of L-dopa, allowing lower doses of L-dopa to achieve the same behavioural results as higher doses in animals not receiving spinal cord stimulation.
These initial results were then replicated in primates:
Title: Spinal cord stimulation alleviates motor deficits in a primate model of Parkinson disease.
Authors: Santana MB, Halje P, Simplício H, Richter U, Freire MA, Petersson P, Fuentes R, Nicolelis MA.
Journal: Neuron. 2014 Nov 19;84(4):716-22.
PMID: 25447740 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this study, the researchers modelled Parkinson’s disease in five adult marmosets using the neurotoxin 6-OHDA, which resulted in a reduction in spontaneous behaviour and a significant loss of dopamine neurons in the brain. They then implanted a spinal cord stimulator in each of the animals, which once activated resulted in a 200% improvement in some aspects of behavioural activity. Improvements observed in Parkinson’s-like features included freezing (31%), hypokinesia (23%), posture (23%), and bradykinesia (21%) as calculated by investigators blind to the treatment conditions of each subject.
In the brain, the researchers found that spinal cord stimulation resulted in similar improvements in neural activity as that seen with L-dopa treatment. Given all of these results, the investigators concluded that spinal cord stimulation “should be further tested in clinical studies aimed at measuring its long-term efficacy as a less invasive, long-term therapy for” people with Parkinson’s disease.
And it was not just Prof Nicolelis’ group that has achieved these results. Japanese researchers have also reported spinal cord stimulation having beneficial effects in models of Parkinson’s disease:
Title: Spinal cord stimulation exerts neuroprotective effects against experimental Parkinson’s disease.
Authors: Shinko A, Agari T, Kameda M, Yasuhara T, Kondo A, Tayra JT, Sato K, Sasaki T, Sasada S, Takeuchi H, Wakamori T, Borlongan CV, Date I.
Journal: PLoS One. 2014 Jul 10;9(7):e101468.
PMID: 25009993 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this report, the researchers actually found that spinal cord stimulation resulted in neuroprotection in a classical model of Parkinson’s disease (rodent 6-OHDA striatal delivery). Across three different levels of stimulation, the researchers reported better rescue of motor deficits and protection of dopamine neurons (particularly for 50Hz stimulation). The researchers also provided evidence suggesting that the neuroprotective effect might have something to do with a protein called Vascular endothelial growth factor (or VEGF). Interestingly, they found that the neuroprotective protein GDNF (that we have discussed before – click here for that post) was not involved.
So has this spinal stimulation procedure ever been conducted in humans with Parkinson’s disease before?
Yes, it has. But the results were a bit disappointing.
Title: Spinal cord stimulation failed to relieve akinesia or restore locomotion in Parkinson disease.
Authors: Thevathasan W, Mazzone P, Jha A, Djamshidian A, Dileone M, Di Lazzaro V, Brown P.
Journal: Neurology. 2010 Apr 20;74(16):1325-7.
PMID: 20404313 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In this very small clinical study, just two people (both 75+ years of age) with Parkinson’s disease were fitted with spinal cord stimulators. Ten days after the surgery, the subjects participated in a blind analysis of the motor effects of spinal stimulation (blind analysis meaning that the assessors were not aware of their surgical treatment). The assessors, however, found no improvements as a result of the stimulation treatment.
This report lead to a letter to the journal from Prof Nicolelis and his colleagues:
In their letter, Prof Nicolelis and co point out several issues with the clinical study that may impact the final results (such as the tiny size of the study (only two participants) and the fact that the electrodes were located at a high cervical level, while in the rodent study they were located at a high thoracic level). In addition, the commercially available electrodes used in the human clinical study did not match the relative size or orientation of the electrodes used in the rodent study.
The researchers of the clinical study suggested that the beneficial motor effect described in the rodent study may be due to an increase in arousal (as a result of higher stimulation). But Prof Nicolelis and colleagues pointed out in their letter that their rodent study included three control experiments (including air puffs, trigeminal stimulation at the highest intensity tolerated by the animals, and direct measurements of changes in heart rate following spinal stimulation) which did not find a strong connection between arousal response and recovery seen in the level of locomotion.
The letter concluded that the results of the small clinical trial were inconclusive, and that further research in nonhuman primate models of Parkinson’s are required to determine the effects of electrode design and stimulation parameters. The doctors behind the clinical study agreed that more research is required.
And what do we know about this new clinical study?
Unfortunately, not very much.
The study is being conducted by Prof. Mandar Jog of Western University. Recently the Parkinson’s Society Southwestern Ontario provided some funding towards the study (Click here for more on this), but that is about as much as we could find on the work.
So what does it all mean?
Summing up: Spinal cord stimulation is a technique that is used to alleviate severe back pain. It has recently been proposed for Parkinson’s disease, resulting in several clinical trials. Here at the SoPD we are not sure what our opinion on spinal cord stimulation is at present, except that more research is obviously required.
If the results from the new clinical study (being conducted in Canada) indicate that spinal cord stimulation has beneficial effects for people with Parkinson’s disease, it would certainly represent a significant step forward for the community which relies heavily on symptom masking drugs at present. Before proceeding to wider clinical availability, however, larger clinical studies will be required to truly demonstrate safety and efficacy.
We’ll let you know if we hear anything else about this developing area of research.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Greg Dunn
Here at the SoPD we understand and are deeply sympathetic to the frustration felt by the Parkinson’s community regarding the idea of ‘200 years and still no cure’.
As research scientists, we are in the trench everyday – fighting the good fight – trying to find ways of alleviating this terrible condition. And some of us are also in the clinics, interacting with sufferers and their families, listening to their stories and trying to help. While we do not deal directly with the day-to-day trials of living with Parkinson’s disease, we are keenly aware of many of the issues and are fully invested in trying to correct this condition.
We do feel, however, that it is important to put some context into that ‘200 years’ time point that we are observing this week. It is too easy for people to think “wow, 200 years and still no cure?”
In our previous post – made in collaboration with Prof Frank Church of the Journey with Parkinson’s blog – we listed the major historical milestones and discoveries made in the Parkinson’s disease field during the last 200 years.
The most striking feature of that time line, however, is how just little actually happened during the first 100 years.
In fact for most of that period, Parkinson’s disease wasn’t even called ‘Parkinson’s disease’.
Of the 48 events that we covered on that time line, 37 of them have occurred in the last 50 years (26 since 2000).
Taking this line of thought one step further, 2017 is also the 20 year anniversary of the discovery of alpha synuclein‘s association with Parkinson’s disease. And what a remarkable 20 years that has been. In 1997, a group of researcher at the National institute of Health led by Robert Nussbaum reported the first genetic mutation in the alpha synuclein gene that infers vulnerability to Parkinson’s disease.
Since then, we have:
- identified multiple additional mutations within that same gene that increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
- determined which forms of alpha synuclein are toxic.
- identified alpha synuclein as an important component of Lewy bodies – the dense clusters of protein found in the Parkinsonian brain.
- discovered numerous methods by which alpha synuclein can be passed between cells – potentially aiding in the spread of Parkinson’s disease.
- developed and validated models of Parkinson’s disease based on manipulations of alpha synuclein (including numerous genetically engineered mice, viral over-expression models, etc).
- identified alpha synuclein in the lining of the gut of people with Parkinson’s disease and this has aided us in developing new theories as to how the condition may start.
- set up and run numerous clinical trials targeting alpha synuclein (and we eagerly await the results of those trials).
- published over 6200 scientific papers (don’t believe me? Click here) – that’s over 300 publications per year!
Alpha synuclein protein. Source: Wikipedia
And the truly amazing part? All of these particular achievements are only dealing with just the one gene: alpha synuclein.
Since the identification of the alpha synuclein mutations, we have subsequently discovered genetic mutations in over 20 other genes that increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. And we have conducted the same activities/experiments for most of those genes as we have for alpha synuclein.
For example, in 2004 we discovered that people with genetic mutations in a gene called glucocerebrosidase (or GBA) had an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. In 2016, just 12 years after that discovery we have started a clinical trial designed specifically for those people (Click here for more on this).
Source: Parkinson’s UK
We here at the SoPD are fully supportive of campaigns like #WeWontWait, and this post was not written (nor meant to be taken) as an excuse response to the ‘200 years and no cure’ frustration. I can understand how it may be read that way, but I did not know how else to write it. And I thought it needed to be written.
The point of this entire post is that those 200 years need to be put into context.
And while all of these words aren’t going to make life easier for someone living with Parkinson’s to deal with their situation, in addition to raising awareness this week I think it is important for the Parkinson’s community to also understand just how far we have come, and how fast we are currently progressing.
The question can be asked: will this be the last major anniversary we acknowledge with regards to Parkinson’s disease?
I sincerely think that there is cause to hope that it is.
Let me finish with a personal note:
I have a good friend – let’s call him Matt.
As a young boy, Matt remembers his grandfather having Parkinson’s disease. He remembers growing up watching the trials and tribulations that the old man went through with the condition. There were basically no treatment options when Matt’s grandfather was diagnosed and little in the way of support for the family. His grandfather’s body simply froze up as the disease progressed. L-dopa probably only became available to Matt’s grandfather during the latter stages of the disease.
Four years ago Matt’s father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
Thanks to scientific advances, however, Matt’s dad now has a wide range of treatment options on the medication side of things. The disease can be managed so that he can still play his golf and enjoy his retirement – in a way that his own father never could. He also has numerous surgical options once those medications lose their effectiveness (eg. deep brain stimulation, Pallidotomy, etc). The chances are very likely that Matt’s father will pass on by natural causes before he requires many of those additional options.
This is the progress that we have made.
But there is still a lot of work to be done of course.
During a lunch shortly after his father’s diagnosis, Matt looked squarely across the table at me. Me, the Parkinson’s researcher. All of the usual jovial nature was missing from his face and he simply muttered the words ‘hurry up’.
Whether he was speaking for his father, himself or his own young kids, I understood where his words were coming from and the sentiment.
And, as this post and the previous post point out, we are hurrying up.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from BMO
For today’s post, we have teamed up with Prof Frank Church from the Journey with Parkinson’s blog to bring readers an ‘Introduction to the historical timeline on Parkinson’s disease’.
The idea for this project started as a conversation between Frank and his partner Barbara during a recent weekend at the beach in North Carolina.
Frank said: “Wouldn’t it be cool to publish a Parkinson’s historical timeline for Parkinson’s awareness month?”
However, to complete this project Frank felt it necessary to bring in some extra help in the form of a Parkinson’s expert.
And when everyone else said they were too busy, Frank contacted us.
Truly flattered, we immediately said yes. And the rest is history.
We are happy to present the milestones in Parkinson’s disease research and discover, though we do apologise to the clinicians, scientists, health-care specialists, and their projects that were not cited here but we limited the timeline to ~50 notations.
Below there are six panels outlining different stages of the history of Parkinson’s disease, and under each of them we have briefly described each of the events in the panel.
We hope you like it.
1817-1919- Milestones in Parkinson’s Disease Research and Discovery (Part 1a: Historical):
First description of Parkinson’s disease
In 1811, Mr James Parkinson of no. 1 Hoxton Square (London) published a 66 page booklet called an ‘An Essay on the Shaking Palsy’. At the date of printing, it sold for 3 shillings (approx. £9 or US$12). The booklet was the first complete description of a condition that James called ‘Paralysis agitans’ or shaking palsy. In his booklet, he discusses the history of tremor and distinguishes this new condition from other diseases. He then describes three of his own patients and three people who he saw in the street.
The naming of Parkinson’s disease
Widely considered the ‘Father of modern neurology’, the importance of Jean-Martin Charcot’s contribution to modern medicine is rarely in doubt. From Sigmund Freud to William James (one of the founding fathers of Psychology), Charcot taught many of the great names in the early field of neurology. Between 1868 and 1881, Charcot focused much of his attention on the ‘paralysis agitans’. Charcot rejected the label ‘Paralysis agitans’, however, suggesting that it was misleading in that patients were not markedly weak and do not necessarily have tremor. Rather than Paralysis Agitans, Charcot suggested that Maladie de Parkinson (or Parkinson’s disease) would be a more appropriate name, bestowing credit to the man who first described the condition. And thus 70 years after passing away, James Parkinson was immortalized with the disease named after him.
The further clinical characterisation of Parkinson’s disease
British neurologist Sir William Gowers published a two-volume text called the Manual of Diseases of the Nervous System (1886, 1888). In this book he described his personal experience with 80 people with Parkinson’s disease in the 1880s. He also identified the subtle male predominance of the disorder and provided illustrations of the characteristic posture. In his treatment of Parkinson’s tremor, Gower used hyoscyamine, hemlock, and hemp (cannabis) as effective agents for temporary tremor abatement.
The discovery of the chemical dopamine
In the Parkinsonian brain there is a severe reduction in the chemical dopamine. This chemical was first synthesised in 1910 by George Barger and James Ewens at the Wellcome labs in London, England.
The discovery of Lewy bodies
One of the cardinal features of Parkinson’s disease in the brain is the presence of Lewy bodies – circular clusters of protein. In 1912, German neurologist Friedrich Lewy, just two years out of medical school and still in his first year as Director of the Neuropsychiatric Laboratory at the University of Breslau (now Wroclaw, Poland) Medical School discovered these ‘spherical inclusions’ in the brains of a people who had died with Parkinson’s disease.
The importance of the substantia nigra in Parkinson’s disease
The first brain structure to be associated with Parkinson’s disease was the substantia nigra. This region lies in an area called the midbrain and contains the majority of the dopamine neurons in the human brain. It was in 1919 that a Russian graduate student working in Paris, named Konstantin Tretiakoff, first demonstrated that the substantia nigra was associated with Parkinson’s disease. Tretiakoff also noticed circular clusters in the brains he examined and named them ‘corps de Lewy’ (or Lewy bodies) after the German neurologist Friedrich Lewy who first discovered them.
1953-1968- Milestones in Parkinson’s Disease Research and Discovery (Part 1b: Historical):
The first complete pathologic analysis of the Parkinsonian brain
The most complete pathologic analysis of Parkinson’s disease with a description of the main sites of damage was performed in 1953 by Joseph Godwin Greenfield and Frances Bosanquet.
The discovery of a functional role for dopamine in the brain
Until the late 1950s, the chemical dopamine was widely considered an intermediate in the production of another chemical called norepinephrine. That is to say, it had no function and was simply an ingredient in the recipe for norepinephrine. Then in 1958, Swedish scientist Arvid Carlsson discovered that dopamine acts as a neurotransmitter – a discovery that won Carlsson the 2000 Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine.
The founding of the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation
In 1957, a nonprofit organisation called the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation was founded by William Black. It was committed to finding a cure for Parkinson’s Disease. Since its founding in 1957, PDF has funded more than $115 million worth of scientific research in Parkinson’s disease.
The discovery of the loss of dopamine in the brain of people with Parkinson’s disease
In 1960, Herbert Ehringer and Oleh Hornykiewicz demonstrated that the chemical dopamine was severely reduced in brains of people who had died with Parkinson’s disease.
The first clinical trials of Levodopa
Knowing that dopamine can not enter the brain and armed with the knowledge that the chemical L-dopa was the natural ingredient in the production of dopamine, Oleh Hornykiewicz & Walther Birkmayer began injecting people with Parkinson’s disease with L-dopa in 1961. The short term response to the drug was dramatic: “Bed-ridden patients who were unable to sit up, patients who could not stand up when seated, and patients who when standing could not start walking performed all these activities with ease after L-dopa. They walked around with normal associated movements and they could even run and jump.” (Birkmayer and Hornykiewicz 1961).
The first internationally-used rating system for Parkinson’s disease
In 1967, Melvin Yahr and Margaret Hoehn published a rating system for Parkinson’s disease in the journal Neurology. It involves 5 stages, ranging from unilateral symptoms but no functional disability (stage 1) to confinement to wheel chair (stage 5). Since then, a modified Hoehn and Yahr scale has been proposed with the addition of stages 1.5 and 2.5 in order to help better describe the intermediate periods of the disease.
Perfecting the use of L-dopa as a treatment for Parkinson’s disease
In 1968, Greek-American scientist George Cotzias reported dramatic effects on people with Parkinson’s disease using oral L-dopa. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. and L-dopa becomes a therapeutic reality with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approving the drug for use in Parkinson’s disease in 1970. Cotzias and his colleagues were also the first to describe L-dopa–induced dyskinesias.
1972-1997- Milestones in Parkinson’s Disease Research and Discovery (Part 1c: Historical):
Levodopa + AADC inhibitors (carbidopa or benserazide)
When given alone levodopa is broken down to dopamine in the bloodstream, which leads to some detrimental side effects. By including an aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) inhibitor with levodopa allows the levodopa to get to the blood-brain barrier in greater amounts for better utilisation by the neurons. In the U.S., the AADC inhibitor of choice is carbidopa and in other countries it’s benserazide.
The discovery of dopamine agonists
Dopamine agonists are ‘mimics’ of dopamine that pass through the blood brain barrier to interact with target dopamine receptors. Since the mid-1970’s, dopamine agonists are often the first medication given most people to treat their Parkinson’s; furthermore, they can be used in conjunction with levodopa/carbidopa. The most commonly prescribed dopamine agonists in the U.S. are Ropinirole (Requip®), Pramipexole (Mirapex®), and Rotigotine (Neupro® patch). There are some challenging side effects of dopamine agonists including compulsive behaviour (e.g., gambling and hypersexuality), orthostatic hypotension, and hallucination.
The clinical use of MAO-B inhibitors
In the late-1970’s, monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B) inhibitors were created to block an enzyme in the brain that breaks down levodopa. MAO-B inhibitors have a modest effect in suppressing the symptoms of Parkinson’s. Thus, one of the functions of MAO-B inhibitors is to prolong the half-life of levodopa to facilitate its use in the brain. Very recently in clinical trials, it’s been shown that MAO-B inhibitors have some neuroprotective effect when used long-term. The most widely used MAO-B inhibitors in the U.S. include Rasagiline (Azilect) and Selegiline (Eldepryl and Zelpar); MAO-B inhibitors may reduce “off” time and extend “on” time of levodopa.
Fetal Cell transplantation
After successful preclinical experiments in rodents, a team of researchers in Sweden, led by Anders Bjorklund and Olle Lindvall, began the first clinical trials of fetal cell transplantation for Parkinson’s disease. These studies involved taking embryonic dopamine cells and injecting them into the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease. The cells then matured and replaced the cells that had been lost during the progression of the disease.
The discovery of MPTP
In July of 1982, Dr. J. William Langston of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose (California) was confronted with a group of heroin addicts who were completely immobile. A quick investigation demonstrated that the ‘frozen addicts’ had injected themselves with a synthetic heroin that had not been prepared correctly. The heroin contained a chemical called MPTP, which when injected into the body rapidly kills dopamine cells. This discovery provided the research community with a new tool for modelling Parkinson’s disease.
1997-2006- Milestones in Parkinson’s Disease Research and Discovery (Part 1d: Historical):
Alpha synuclein becomes the first gene associated with familial cases of Parkinson’s disease and its protein is found in Lewy bodies
In 1997, a group of researchers at the National institute of Health led by Robert Nussbaum reported the first genetic aberration linked to Parkinson’s disease. They had analysed DNA from a large Italian family and some Greek familial cases of Parkinson’s disease, and they
The gene Parkin becomes the first gene associated with juvenile Parkinson’s disease
The gene Parkin provides the instructions for producing a protein that is involved with removing rubbish from within a cell. In 1998, a group of Japanese scientists identified mutations in this gene that resulted in affected individuals being vulnerable to developing a very young onset (juvenile) version of Parkinson’s disease.
The first use of PET scan brain imaging for Parkinson’s disease
Using the injection of a small amount of radioactive material (known as a tracer), the level of dopamine present in an area of the brain called the striatum could be determined in a live human being. Given that amount of dopamine in the striatum decreases over time in Parkinson’s disease, this method of brain scanning represented a useful diagnostic aid and method of potentially tracking the condition.
The launch of Michael J Fox Foundation
In 1991, actor Michael J Fox was diagnosed with young-onset Parkinson’s disease at 29 years of age. Upon disclosing his condition in 1998, he committed himself to the campaign for increased Parkinson’s research. Founded on the 31st October, 2000, the Michael J Fox Foundation has funded more than $700 million in Parkinson’s disease research, representing one of the largest non-governmental sources of funding for Parkinson’s disease.
The Braak Staging of Parkinson’s pathology
In 2003, German neuroanatomist Heiko Braak and colleagues presented a new theory of how Parkinson’s disease spreads based on the postmortem analysis of hundreds of brains from people who had died with Parkinson’s disease. Braak proposed a 6 stage theory, involving the disease spreading from the brain stem (at the top of the spinal cord) up into the brain and finally into the cortex.
The gene DJ1 is linked to early onset PD
DJ1 (also known as PARK7) is a protein that inhibits the aggregation of Parkinson’s disease-associated protein alpha synuclein. In 2003, researchers discovered mutations in the DJ1 gene that made people vulnerable to a early-onset form of Parkinson’s disease.
The first GDNF clinical trial indicates neuroprotection in people with Parkinson’s disease
A small open-label clinical study involving the direct delivery of the chemical Glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) into the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease indicated that neuroprotection. The subjects involved in the study exhibited positive responses to the treatment and postmortem analysis of one subjects brain indicated improvements in the brain.
The genes Pink1 and LRRK2 are associated with early onset PD
Early onset Parkinson’s is defined by age of onset between 20 and 40 years of age, and it accounts for <10% of all patients with Parkinson’s. Genetic studies are finding a causal association for Parkinson’s with five genes: alpha synuclein (SNCA), parkin (PARK2), PTEN-induced putative kinase 1 (PINK1), DJ-1 (PARK7), and Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2). However it happens, and at whatever age it occurs, there is no doubt that genetics and environment combine together to contribute to the development of Parkinson’s.
The discovery of induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells
In 2006, Japanese researchers demonstrated that it was possible to take skin cells and genetically reverse engineer them into a more primitive state – similar to that of a stem cell. This amazing achievement involved a fully mature cell being taken back to a more immature state, allowing it to be subsequently differentiated into any type of cell. This research resulted in the discoverer, Shinya Yamanaka being awarded the 2012 Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine.
2007-2016- Milestones in Parkinson’s Disease Research and Discovery (Part 1e: Historical):
The introduction of the MDS-UPDRS revised rating scale
The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (UPDRS) was introduced in 2007 to address two limitations of the previous scaling system, namely a lack of consistency among subscales and the low emphasis on the non-motor features. It is now the most commonly used scale in the clinical study of Parkinson’s disease.
The discovery of Lewy bodies in transplanted dopamine cells
Postmortem analysis of the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease who had fetal cell transplantation surgery in the 1980-1990s demonstrated that Lewy bodies are present in the transplanted dopamine cells. This discovery (made by three independent research groups) suggests that Parkinson’s disease can spread from unhealthy cells to healthy cells. This finding indicates a ‘prion-like’ spread of the condition.
SNCA, MAPT and LRRK2 are risk genes for idiopathic Parkinson’s disease
Our understanding of the genetics of Parkinson’s is rapidly expanding. There is recent evidence of multiple genes linked to an increase the risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s. Interestingly, microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) is involved in microtubule assembly and stabilization, and it can complex with alpha synuclein (SNCA). Future therapies are focusing on the reduction and clearance of alpha synuclein and inhibition of Lrrk2 kinase activity.
IPS derived dopamine neurons from people with Parkinson’s disease
The ability to generate dopamine cells from skin cells derived from a person with Parkinson’s disease represents not only a tremendous research tool, but also opens the door to more personalized treatments of suffers. Induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells have opened new doors for researchers and now that we can generate dopamine cells from people with Parkinson’s disease exciting opportunities are suddenly possible.
Neuroprotective effect of exercise in rodent Parkinson’s disease models
Exercise has been shown to be both neuroprotective and neurorestorative in animal models of Parkinson’s. Exercise promotes an anti-inflammatory microenvironment in the mouse/rat brain (this is but one example of the physiological influence of exercise in the brain), which helps to reduce dopaminergic cell death. Taking note of these extensive and convincing model system results, many human studies studying exercise in Parkinson’s are now also finding positive benefits from strenuous and regular exercise to better manage the complications of Parkinson’s.
Transeuro cell transplantation trial begins
In 2010, a European research consortium began a clinical study with the principal objective of developing an efficient and safe treatment methodology fetal cell transplantation in people with Parkinson’s disease. The trial is ongoing and the subjects will be followed up long term to determine if the transplantation can slow or reverse the features of Parkinson’s disease.
Successful preclinical testing of dopamine neurons from embryonic stem cells
Scientists in Sweden and New York have successfully generated dopamine neurons from human embryonic stem cells that can be successfully transplanted into animal models of Parkinson’s disease. Not only do the cells survive, but they also correct the motor deficits that the animals exhibit. Efforts are now being made to begin clinical trials in 2018.
Microbiome of the gut influences Parkinson’s disease
Several research groups have found the Parkinson’s disease-associated protein alpha synuclein in the lining of the gut, suggesting that the intestinal system may be one of the starting points for Parkinson’s disease. In 2016, researchers found that the bacteria in the stomachs of people with Parkinson’s disease is different to normal healthy individuals. In addition, experiments in mice indicated that the bacteria in the gut can influence the healthy of the brain, providing further evidence supporting a role for the gut in the development of Parkinson’s disease.
2016-2017- Milestones in Parkinson’s Disease Research and Discovery (Part 2: Clinical trials either recently completed or in progress)
Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy Assessment of Dynacirc (Isradipine) for PD (STEADY-PD) III trial
Isradipine is a calcium-channel blocker approved for treating high blood pressure; however, Isradipine is not approved for treating Parkinson’s. In animal models, Isradipine has been shown to slow the progression of PD by protecting dopaminergic neurons. This study is enrolling newly diagnosed PD patients not yet in need of symptomatic therapy. Participants will be randomly assigned Isradipine or given a placebo.
Treatment of Parkinson’s Psychosis with Nuplazid
Approximately 50% of the people with Parkinson’s develop psychotic tendencies. Treatment of their psychosis can be relatively difficult. However, a new drug named Nuplazid was recently approved by the FDA specifically designed to treat Parkinson’s psychosis.
Opicapone (COMT Inhibitor) as Adjunct to Levodopa Therapy in Patients With Parkinson Disease and Motor Fluctuations
Catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT) inhibitors prolong the effect of levodopa by blocking its metabolism. COMT inhibitors are used primarily to help with the problem of the ‘wearing-off’ phenomenon associated with levodopa. Opicapone is a novel, once-daily, potent third-generation COMT inhibitor. It appears to be safer than existing COMT drugs. If approved by the FDA, Opicapone is planned for use in patients with Parkinson’s taking with levodopa who experience wearing-off issues.
Nilotinib (Tasigna® by Novartis) indicates positive results in phase I trial.
Nilotinib is a drug used in the treatment of leukemia. In 2015, it demonstrated beneficial effects in a small phase I clinical trial of Parkinson’s disease. Researchers believe that the drug activates the disposal system of cells, thereby helping to make cells healthier. A phase II trial of this drug to determine how effective it is in Parkinson’s disease is now underway.
ISCO cell transplantation trial begins
International Stem Cell Corporation is currently conducting a phase I clinical cell transplantation trial at a hospital in Melbourne, Australia. The company is transplanting human parthenogenetic stem cells-derived neural stem cells into the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease. The participants will be assessed over 12 months to determine whether the cells are safe for use in humans.
Neuropore’s alpha-synuclein stabilizer (NPT200-11) passes phase I trial
Neuropore Therapies is a biotech company testing a compound (NPT200-11) that inhibits and stablises the activity of the Parkinson’s disease-associated protein alpha synuclein. This alpha-synuclein inhibitor has been shown to be safe and well tolerated in humans in a phase I clinical trial and the company is now developing a phase II trial.
mGluR4 PAM (PXT002331) well tolerated in phase I trial
Prexton Therapeutics recently announced positive phase I clinical trial results for their lead drug, PXT002331, which is the first drug of its kind to be tested in Parkinson’s disease. PXT002331 is a mGluR4 PAM – this is a class of drug that reduces the level of inhibition in the brain. In Parkinson’s disease there is an increase in inhibition in the brain, resulting in difficulties with initiating movements. Phase II clinical trials to determine efficacy are now underway.
Initial results of Bristol GDNF trial indicate no effect
Following remarkable results in a small phase I clinical study, the recent history of the neuroprotective chemical GDNF has been less than stellar. A subsequent phase II trial demonstrated no difference between GDNF and a placebo control, and now a second phase II trial in the UK city of Bristol has reported initial results also indicating no effect. Given the initial excitement that surrounded GDNF, this result has been difficult to digest. Additional drugs that behave in a similar fashion to GDNF are now being tested in the clinic.
Immunotherapies proves safe in phase I trials (AFFiRis & Prothena)
Immunotherapy is a treatment approach which strengthens the body’s own immune system. Several companies (particularly ‘AFFiRis’ in Austria and ‘Prothena’ in the USA) are now conducting clinical trials using treatments that encourage the immune system to target the Parkinson’s disease-associated protein alpha synuclein. Both companies have reported positive phase I results indicating the treatments are well tolerable in humans, and phase II trials are now underway.
Living Cell Technologies Limited continue Phase II trial of NTCELL
A New Zealand company called Living Cell Technologies Limited have been given permission to continue their phase II clincial trial of their product NTCELL, which is a tiny capsule that contains cells which release supportive nutrients when implanted in the brain. The implanted participants will be blindly assessed for 26 weeks, and if the study is successful, the company will “apply for provisional consent to treat paying patients in New Zealand…in 2017”.
MAO-B inhibitors shown to be neuroprotective.
MAO-B inhibitors block/slow the break down of the chemical dopamine. Their use in Parkinson’s disease allows for more dopamine to be present in the brain. Recently, several longitudinal studies have indicated that this class of drugs may also be having a neuroprotective effect.
Inhalable form of L-dopa
Many people with Parkinson’s disease have issues with swallowing. This makes taking their medication in pill form problematic. Luckily, a new inhalable form of L-dopa will shortly become available following recent positive Phase III clinical trial results, which demonstrated a statistically significant improvements in motor function for people with Parkinson’s disease during OFF periods.
Exenatide trial results expected
Exenatide is a drug that is used in the treatment of diabetes. It has also demonstrated beneficial effects in preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease, as well as an open-label clinical study over a 14 month period. Interestingly, in a two year follow-up study of that clinical trial – conducted 12 months after the patients stopped receiving Exenatide – the researchers found that patients previously exposed to Exenatide demonstrated significant improvements compared to how they were at the start of the study. There is currently a placebo-controlled, double blind phase II clinical trial being conducted and the results should be reported before the end of 2017.
A personal reflection
As I suggested at the start of this post, this endeavour was entirely Frank’s idea – full credit belongs with him. I was more than happy to help him out with it though as I thought it was a very worthy project. During this 200 year anniversary, I believe it is very important to acknowledge just how far we have come in our understanding of Parkinson’s disease since James first put pen to paper and described the six cases he had seen in London.
And Frank’s idea perfectly captures this.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Greg Dunn (we are big fans!)
Our policy at the SoPD is not to advertise or endorse commercial products or services. This is to avoid any ethical or conflict of interest situations.
Every now and then, however, we see something that we believe will be of interest and value to the Parkinson’s community…aaand we bend our policy rule book.
Today the Journal of Parkinson’s disease released a “200 years of Parkinson’s disease” OPEN ACCESS special issue of their journal which highlights some of the major discoveries in the field of Parkinson’s disease research.
Critically, the articles provide insights into how the discoveries were made, and they are written by some of the biggest names in the Parkinson’s research community (many of whom were actually there when the discoveries were made).
The issue has articles dealing with topics including:
Click here to see all of the articles in this special issue.
We fully recommend readers take advantage of this OPEN ACCESS issue and learn about how some of these great discoveries were made.
Full disclosure: The Journal of Parkinson’s disease is a product of IOS Press. The SoPD has not been approached by or made any offers to IOS Press or anyone at the Journal of Parkinson’s disease. We merely thought that the material in this particular OPEN ACCESS issue would be of interest to our readers.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from the Journal of Parkinson’s disease
I really didn’t expect to be writing about Parkinson’s research being conducted in New Zealand again so quickly, but yesterday a new study was published which has a few people excited.
It presents evidence of how the disease may be spreading… using cells collected from people with Parkinson’s disease.
In today’s post we will review the study and discuss what it means for Parkinson’s disease.
The South Island of NZ from orbit. Source: Sciencenews
We may have mentioned the protein Alpha synuclein once or twice on this blog.
For anyone familiar with the biology of Parkinson’s disease, alpha synuclein is a major player. It is either public enermy no.1 in the underlying pathology of this condition or else it is the ultimate ‘fall guy’, left standing in the crime scene holding the bloody knife.
Remind me, what is alpha synuclein?
Alpha synuclein is an extremely abundant protein in our brains – making up about 1% of all the proteins floating around in each neuron (one of the main types of cell in the brain).
In healthy brain cells, normal alpha synuclein is typically found just inside the surface of the membrane surrounding the cell body and in the tips of the branches extending from the cell (in structures called presynaptic terminals which are critical to passing messages between neurons).
And why is alpha synuclein important in Parkinson’s disease?
Genetic mutations account for 10-20% of the cases in Parkinson’s disease.
Five mutations in the alpha-synuclein gene have been identified which are associated with increased risk of Parkinson’s disease (A53T, A30P, E46K, H50Q, and G51D – these are coordinates for locations on the alpha synuclein gene). Rare duplication or triplication of the gene have also been associated with Parkinson’s disease.
The structure of alpha synuclein protein – blue squares are mutations. Source: Mdpi
So genetically, alpha synuclein is associated with Parkinson’s disease. But it is also involved at the protein level.
In brains of many people with Parkinson’s disease, there are circular clumps of alpha synuclein (and other proteins) that collect inside cells. These clumps are called Lewy bodies. They are particularly abundant in areas of the brain that have suffered cell loss.
A lewy body (brown with a black arrow) inside a cell. Source: Cure Dementia
No one has ever seen the process of Lewy body formation, so all we can do is speculate about how these aggregates develop. Currently there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that alpha synuclein can be passed between cells. Once inside the new cell, the alpha synuclein helps to seed the formation of new Lewy bodies, and this is how the disease is believed to progress.
Exactly how alpha synuclein is being passed between cells is the topic of much research at the moment. There are many theories and some results implicating methods such as direct penetration, or via a particular receptor. Perhaps even by a small package called an exosome being passed between cells (see image above).
How this occurs in the Parkinson’s disease brain, however, is unknown.
And this (almost) brings us to the kiwi scientists.
Last years, a group of Swiss scientists demonstrated that alpha synuclein could be passed between cells via ‘nanotubes’ – tiny tubes connecting between cells. The outlined their observations and results in this article:
Title: Tunneling nanotubes spread fibrillar α-synuclein by intercellular trafficking of lysosomes.
Authors: Abounit S, Bousset L, Loria F, Zhu S, de Chaumont F, Pieri L, Olivo-Marin JC, Melki R, Zurzolo C.
Journal: EMBO J. 2016 Oct 4;35(19):2120-2138.
The researchers who conducted this study were interested in tunneling nanotubes.
Yes, I know, ‘What are tunneling nanotubes?’
Tunneling nanotubes (also known as Membrane nanotubes or cytoneme are long protrusions extending from one cell membrane to another, allowing the two cells to share their contents. They can extend for long distances, sometimes over 100 μm – 0.1mm, but that’s a long way in the world of cells!
Previous studies had demonstrated that tunneling nanotubes can pass different infectious agents (HIV for example – click here to read more on this), supporting the idea that these structures could be a general conduit by certain diseases could be spreading.
A tunneling nanotube between two cells. Source: Pasteur
In their study the Swiss researchers found that alpha synuclein could be transferred between brain cells (grown in culture) via tunneling nanotubes. In addition, following that process of transfer, the alpha synuclein was able to induce the aggregation (or clumping) of the alpha synuclein in recipient cells.
A particularly interesting finding was that alpha synuclein appeared to encourage the appearance of tunneling nanotubes (there were more tunneling nanotubes apparent when cells produced more alpha synuclein). And the alpha synuclein that was being transferred was being passed on in ‘lysosomal vesicles’ – these are the rubbish bags of the cell (lysosomal vesicles are used to take proteins away for degradation).
Paints a rather insidious picture of the ‘ultimate fall guy’ huh!
And that image was made worse by the results published by the kiwis last night:
Title: α-synuclein transfer through tunneling nanotubes occurs in SH-SY5Y cells and primary brain pericytes from Parkinson’s disease patients
Authors: Dieriks BV, Park TI, Fourie C, Faull RL, Dragunow M, Curtis MA.
Journal: Scientific Reports, 7, Article number: 42984
PMID: 28230073 (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)
In their study, the New Zealand scientists extended the Swiss research by looking at cells collected from people with Parkinson’s disease. The researchers took human brain pericytes, which were derived from the postmortem brains of people who died with Parkinson’s disease.
And before you ask: pericytes are cells that wrap around the cells lining small blood vessels. They are important to the development of new blood vessels and maintaining the structural integrity of microvasculature.
A pericyte (blue) hugging a blood vessel (red). Source: Xvivo
Pericytes contain alpha synuclein precipitates like those seen in neurons, and the kiwi scientists demonstrated that pericytes too can transfer alpha synuclein via tunneling nanotubes to neighbouring cells – representing a non-neuronal method of transport.
They also found that the transfer through the tunneling nanotubes can be very rapid – within 30 seconds – and the transferred alpha synuclein can hang around for more than 72 hours, suggesting that it is difficult for the receiving cell to dispose of. The researchers did note that the transfer through tunneling nanotubes occurred only in small subset of cells, but that this could explain the slow progression of Parkinson’s disease over time.
What does it all mean?
In order for us to truly tackle Parkinson’s disease and bring it under control, we need to know how this slowly progressing neurodegenerative condition is spreading. Some researchers in New Zealand have provided evidence involving cells collected from people with Parkinson’s disease that indicates one method by which the disease could be passed from one cell to another.
Tiny tunnels between cells, allowing material to be shared, could explain how the disease slowly progresses. The scientists observed the Parkinson’s associated protein alpha synuclein being passed between cells and then hanging around for more than a few days.
This method of transfer was made more interesting because the New Zealand researchers reported that non-neuronal cells (Pericytes, collected from people with Parkinson’s disease) could also form tunneling nanotubes. This observation raises questions as to what role non-neuronal cells could be playing in Parkinson’s disease.
This line of questions will obviously be followed up in future research, as will efforts to determine if tunneling nanotubes are actually present in the human brain or simply biological oddities present only in the culture dish. Demonstrating nanotubes in the brain will be difficult, but it would provide us with solid evidence that this method of disease transfer could be a bonafide cause of disease spread.
We watch with interest for further work in this area.
FULL DISCLOSURE: The author of this blog is a kiwi… and proud of it. He is familiar with the researchers who have conducted this research, but has had no communication with them regarding the publishing of this post. He simply thought that the results of their study would be of interest to the Parkinson’s community.
The banner for today’s post was sourced from Pinterest