futurity.org writes with news that Iowa State researchers have made a breakthrough that could eventually lead to a cure for Parkinson's. Identifying the protein that kills the dopamine-producing cells in the brain has allowed the researchers to disable it and could be the first step in the development of new treatments. "Now, Kanthasamy’s group is looking for additional compounds that also can serve to neutralize protein kinase-C. By identifying more compounds that perform the function of neutralizing kinase-C, researchers are more likely to locate one that works well and has few side effects. This discovery is expected to provide new treatment options to stop the progression of the disease or even cure it. 'Once we find the compound, we need to make sure it’s safe. If everything goes well, it could take about 10 years, and then we might be able to see something that will truly make a difference in the lives of people with this disorder,' says Kanthasamy."
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
I haven't done enough research on Alzheimer's to support the link between the two, but the destruction of dopamine-producing cells in Parkinson's surely has an effect on long-term memory.
A lack of dopamine affects other cognitive functions, so I can imagine seeing similar behavioural effects as one sees in Alzheimer's, but I'm not aware of Alzheimer's characteristic loss of neurons and synapses in Parkinson's disease. So the link between them seems
Since the disease leads to paralysis then death how safe does it have to be to be effective? If the cure kills 5% of the people that take it I would think that will be less than the 10 year delay in getting a "perfect" cure out of the lab and through FDA testing.
Since the disease leads to paralysis then death how safe does it have to be to be effective? If the cure kills 5% of the people that take it I would think that will be less than the 10 year delay in getting a "perfect" cure out of the lab and through FDA testing.
Firstly, there are drugs that are moderately effective in Parkinson's Disease - not curative, but they do significantly improve patient functioning. Secondly, and most importantly, they found enzyme that they affects dopamine levels. They HAVE NOT (at least as far as I can tell from TFA) found that they can reverse the clinical entity known as Parkinson's disease by altering the function of that enzyme. That's first.
Then they have to find something (a drug or other treatment modality) that alters enzyme function that can get into brain (not easy) and not trash everything else in sight and / or create more problems than it solves.In this case, the bar is going to be set fairly high.
There are countless potential medical breakthroughs stuck at this stage. Very interesting, likely very important. Very speculative.
I'm more questioning the whole process of drug development and approval as it applies to diseases that are always fatal. I think the modern western approach has gone too far along the "it must be perfect for approval" path with the attached very high cost without showing that it has eliminated or even greatly reduced risk vs a more relaxed approval approach. Sure for a drug like Viagra perhaps the bar should be set high as the gain from the drug is fairly minimal in comparison to the potential problems but
if you are talking about eliminating Parkinsons or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma then the bar should probably be lower
The problem with this approach is that the worse the disease, the more snake-oil you can find out there, promising to cure you and your wallet of all of your ills.
The problem with this approach is that the worse the disease, the more snake-oil you can find out there, promising to cure you and your wallet of all of your ills.
For something that IS time sensitive like Parkinson's, I'd not lower the bar on claims, I'd lower the bar on the risk aspect.
In otherwords, lets say I make a claim that my drug does "A". I would like for the FDA to evaluate it for "A" and the major risks of "Will this likely hurt me more than help?"
You're at least comparing apples, oranges, and pears here.
The current meds can help alleviate the symptoms of the disease, but do nothing to arrest it's progress. Eventually, the disease progresses until the drugs cannot help anymore.
Various transplants aim to reverse the progression of the disease significantly. If it works, it's like starting over, but you still have a progressive degenerative disease and if you live long enough, you'll need another transplant.
There are about 2-3 'stages' of Parkinson's medication, depending on just how much advanced the illness is at time of diagnosis. The first line of defence is the best and has good, manageable, results with relatively few side effects. The initial medication (typically L-Dopa tablets) regimen is effective for approximately the first 8-10 years, with the other stages of treatment decreasing rapidly in effectiveness plus worsening physical and mental side effects.
Protein Kinase C is a key enzyme activated by many very different pathways involved in many different functions across the board. Blocking it will affect innumerable systems.
Saying Protein Kinase C is the key to neutralizing Parkinson's Diseases is like saying Money is the key to the Financial Crisis.... Duh.
The clinical effects of Parkinson's Disease are the result of neuron death. You can't reverse the effects. Even if you induce neuronal growth, the brain will have to relearn the connections it needs to make, which took a lifetime to form. Forget about playing the piano again. You'll have to relearn to play (although you'll still have the conceptual knowledge).
Be aware that this cure won't reverse degeneration that has already occured.
It will merely hault the progression of Parkinson's so that those in the future diganosed with this illness do not have to fear a slow, lingering decrease in their ability to function in society.
Sadly, this news is 20 years too late to help my father.
This news is too late for a lot of people. However, preventing further damage is the first step in recovery (if recovery is possible). While the brain isn't technically viewed as a resiliant organ, it can partially recover if given enough time.
If we can stop the damage causing element, I wouldn't be surprised (I wouldn't hold my breath) if the damage reversed itself over time (which could be decades)
Since the disease leads to paralysis then death how safe does it have to be to be effective? If the cure kills 5% of the people that take it I would think that will be less than the 10 year delay in getting a "perfect" cure out of the lab and through FDA testing.
Unfortunately, if you give that treatment to everyone, after 5% die, you'll have no one left to experiment on to find an even newer cure that kills no one. Or even worse, you'll find out that half the dosage of the same stuff, cures them just as well without killing anyone at all.
Also the hypothesis is always that its a cure, because that is better for research grants. Of course, if you give it to everyone in an uncontrolled manner, if it doesn't work, which would not be entirely surprising, then ten year
Unfortunately, if you give that treatment to everyone, after 5% die, you'll have no one left to experiment on to find an even newer cure that kills no one. Or even worse, you'll find out that half the dosage of the same stuff, cures them just as well without killing anyone at all.
Believe me they do multiple dosage in the trials. This is presuming the worst case scenario. Also I wish that PD would magically disappear and that there would be never be a new case.
You're making it a black and white issue, under your assumption it's either snake oil or it's a perfect cure. In the real world there are shades of grey and we are shooting for (and paying for) 99.9% black but are probably really getting 97% black when we get anything at all, many diseases go untreated because it's too expensive to develop a drug with a small potential patient set. What I'm proposing is relaxing things to a target of say 95% black when the disease warrants it. It's kind of like uptime in IT
I think things ARE relaxed and graded according to how the disease warrants it. For example, a children's Rotavirus vaccine was pulled off the market in 1999 because an extra ~5 out of 1,000,000 children had an adverse reaction (ie. the vaccine was 99.9995% safe) than was expected by statistical analysis. On the other hand, cancer treatments which cause a great deal of toxicity but which extend life an extra few months are regularly approved. You may feel the scale isn't set quite right, but I think qual
They say the first thing you hear about research or technology is the best thing you will ever hear about it.
I'm not so sure "neutralizing" this kinase-C will result in any miracle cures, as the protein happens to have a lot of other uses in the body, per wikipedia:
"Recurring themes are that PKC is involved in receptor desensitization, in modulating membrane structure events, in regulating transcription, in mediating immune responses, in regulating cell growth, and in learning and memory"
There are a bunch of different types of protein kinase c (known as isozymes: they do the same general thing, reduce the energy it takes for compound A to turn into compound B, but they're different enzymes) so one possibility is targeting only the PKC that's in the brain, and another would be to target only this specific isozyme, but I can't find anything that says *which* isozyme this one is.
Personally, I'm more curious about why PKC is doing this: if we could figure out how/why the dopamine-producing cells are getting killed by PKC and reduce their vulnerability, that seems like it would be a less systemic way of getting the same result than trying to reduce PKC's activity. It'd likely have fewer side-effects since it would only affect the cells getting attacked, rather than all the other cells that need PKC for their normal function.
Sorry to reply to my own post but the PKC in question is protein kinase C delta [aspetjournals.org], which is involved in a buttload of important pathways [wikipedia.org], and shutting it off would be problematic even if you could just kill it without messing with any other of the PKC family. PKC's are used throughout the body, since they add a phosphate group onto other enzymes, which is a sort of tagging system to mark the modified enzymes or activate them and allow them to do other things, but the specific effects/results vary depending on the cell. Metabolic and transcriptional control systems are *truly* complicated. So, in *my* (definitely not professional) opinion, I'm going to reiterate: it's very useful to have evidence that PKC-delta is responsible for killing dopamine-producing cells, but finding out why they're being killed seems a lot more useful theraputically than trying to reduce PKC-delta's activity/concentration. Maybe it's as simple as a defective cell-surface receptor that's getting modified by PKC-delta and we can target that, specifically.
I'm not so sure "neutralizing" this kinase-C will result in any miracle cures, as the protein happens to have a lot of other uses in the body, per wikipedia:
First of all, there isn't just one Protein Kinase C. There are a number of different versions with different jobs. Hence the list of the various isozymes in the article. The one in question is Protein Kinase C delta (PKC), and is NOT covered in the wikipedia article.
PKC mediates apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in certain dopamine producing neurons. By blocking the enzyme, you can prevent the apoptosis. Reading some of Dr. Kanthasamy's papers, it's clear that he's already found some agents that do this in animal models. This is, of course, a long way from human trials (10 years if things go well, I believe is what he said in the article). But this is very promising avenue of research.
There are many different forms of PKC, including PKC delta, the one that seems to be in question here according to recent publications from this lab. Specifically, a caspase enzyme is cleaving PKC delta into a smaller protein, and it's this cleaved version that appears to be causing the damage to the dopamine neurons in the nigra. Caspases mediate programmed cell death, and the compound in the paper I looked at blocks a certain caspase that was activated by the presence of certain metals.
So while PKC and caspases are found widely throughout the body, there's actually a fair degree of specificity in the current model. Of course it's still early, and there are things to worry about, such as a possible increased likelihood for cancer (caspase 3 may be involved in breast cancer). But if this particular interaction between capase 3 and PKC delta can be successfully blocked without harm to other systems, we may have a good treatment on our hands.
I dunno about you, but I reckon most people would take an increased risk of breast cancer(or even a straight up mastectomy) over what happens to you with PD, not a fun way to die as I understand it and die you will.
"Protein kinase C" is really at least 10 different proteins in humans- "isozymes" that have similar function, but different structures and different regulation mechanisms. All of the protein kinaseC variant belong to the larger class of serine/threonine kinases (about 100 different enzymes), and all the work that any of those enzymes do is to add a phosphate group to a serine or threonine amino acid on a protein. That role is important because protein phosphorylation is used as a molecular switch to activate or deactivate a protein. There's nothing special about this particular protein kinase-C isozyme, other than the target it phosphorylates.
Presumably, the target of this particular kinase C form is involved in the apoptosis pathway for dopamine-releasing neurons, so keeping the molecular switch from being turned on could prevent the cell death from being carried out. Since the structures of isozymes are different, you could develop a drug that knocks out this variant of PKC without turning off PKC globally.
However, preventing apoptosis of neurons, while possibly leading to an effective treatment, still does not address why brain cells would feel the need to kill themselves. For instance, in at least some Parkinson's patients, neurons suffer from a buildup of improperly folded protein called alpha-synuclein (compare amyloid and tau in Alzheimer's, prions in prion diseases). (However, overall there are many possible causes of Parkinson's and related syndromes, including unknown causes.) Cell suicide is meant as a protective measure for the remaining cells so they are not in turn poisoned by the output of misfolded proteins. What happens when you turn off apoptosis, and cells which turn "sick" are no longer able to die?
Probably has something to do with the length of time necessary to complete Clinical Trials [wikipedia.org] for FDA (or equivalent regulatory agency) approval. Given that this process is still in the research phase and has not yet progressed to a testable drug state, 10 years sounds about right.
Willing to risk the entire company by taking a few shortcuts? Ethically you might say it's worth it. Better for a company to risk death than a person. But that's not how things are decided. Both have to live. And that takes a lot of time.
Have we seen any real cures via treatments lately? I honestly don't know, but there sure are a lot of maintenance-level medications out there. Is there a treatment or a pill out there that can just cure you flat out, when your body wouldn't do so on its own?
I would think that a drug that prevents a bad thing from happening is a cure. Yes, there are side effects, and yes, there are costs, but extending and enhancing quality of life is a pretty good definition of a cure to me.
There might, and probably will be, drugs that eliminate cancers. Once such things occur, it might/will be possible to reduce or eliminate dosage. Many other diseases are a lack-of or an excess-of in the body. Short of genetic modification, what you can do in these cases OTHER than to pr
I don't know your intentions, but you seem to be insenuating a shift in the approach medicne is taking. I'd say there's not really a change.
Big breakthroughs in early medicne were things like antibiotics. Because the diseases they treat are caused by bacteria, and because you can eliminate all of the bacteria causing a given illness, cure is a reasonable goal.
Viral or fungal infections, or cancers, are similarly things where it makes sense to hope for a cure. Any condition that's caused by somethign attacking your otherwise-functional body might potentially be cured.
But as our lives get longer, and the number of deaths attributed to bacteria, etc. decrease, more and more of the conditions that have our attention are caused by some abnormal function of the body itself. The body is a complex and dynamic place; it's a bit much to hope that acute administration of a chemical will forever alter whatever defect is causing a problem. Suppose, for example, that the cause is ultimately genetic; then every cell is propagating the root cause. If you can interfere with the operation of the disease so as to eliminate - or sometimes even just reduce - symptoms, that's a great result; but it probably does mean you'll be on a maintenance medicine.
Modern medicine is still looking for cures, but the problems we're facing are a lot harder now that the lowest-hanging fruit has been taken.
When I was a kid 20-mumble years ago, I knew someone who got Hodgkin's lymphoma (or "disease" at the time). His family prepared for the inevitable death that was to come a few months later. Today, the cure rate is 90% - it's the cancer you want to get if you're going to have one. I'm personally pretty happy with the cure rates we're seeing in some previously fatal diseases.
Title should read "dopamine producing cell killers"
The research may lead to a treatment to stop the progression. It cannot lead to a 'cure'. By the time symptoms are noticed, about 2/3 of the dopamine producing cells are dead. No matter how loud and clear you tell the remaining cells to stop dying off ('halting apoptosis'; essentialy what the research is about), the dead ones stay dead.
There is already a (partial) cure for Parky's: fetal stem cell injection. It worked 20 years ago, and it'd work today if it
If the side effects are more tolerable than the disease itself most people would opt to use the medicine. Waiting for perfect solutions has never really worked, especially for diseases that slowly rob you of any ability to manage your daily life.
If the side effects are more tolerable than the disease itself most people would opt to use the medicine. Waiting for perfect solutions has never really worked, especially for diseases that slowly rob you of any ability to manage your daily life.
Indeed. If and when it comes time to do trials in humans, they can probably expect to have volunteers lined up around the block. There are certain diseases where "we don't know if this is safe" is not that big a concern.
My godfather was in a study for an experimental treatment for a particular kind of leukemia. He was very close to entering the "acute" (as in acutely fucked) stage and the best matching marrow donor he'd found in years of searching would have left him with an under 10% chance of surviving the transplant if it came to that. He was sick and miserable thanks to his chemotherapy. So, what exactly did he have to lose? Not a whole hell of a lot. What was the outcome? The drug, as far as they could tell, cured him and everyone else in the study. All signs of leukemia vanished.
That's a long shot to happen in any particular case, but how many people who are facing nasty death if they don't try wouldn't be willing to take it?
On a related note, my graduate algorithms professor had a side gig of consulting for the medical industry. He related that he had worked on an algorithm for situations like this one, where as the study progresses and (assuming) the drug is showing signs of being effective you want to move people from the control group to the active group as quickly as possible while still maintaining the validity of the study. The algorithm was exponential in the size of the study, so study sizes or the ability to move people into the active group could be seriously constrained by available computing power. His optimizations (didn't change the big-O iirc) improved the performance and thus allowed larger study sizes and thus, as a result, could have literally saved lives.
Also worth keeping in mind that because this disease kills about 15,000 people a year in the US (and many tens of thousands world wide) every year of delay caused by over-regulation will kill many thousands of people.
Not to call you on your bluff, but would you happen to have facts to these stories, as to which medication and which trial your grandfather was in, I could use it for MY grandfather, and would love to hear where this trail took place, I might book him a ticket right now
Same substance, different parts of the brain. There are several different pathways that involve the release of dopamine; the mesolimbic pathway is where most of the behavioral functions of dopamine occur, and the nigrostriatal pathway, which is involved in motor control. In Parkinson's, the dopamine releasing neurons of the substantia nigra (at one end of the nigrostriatal pathway) die, leading to the characteristic motor symptoms. However, many drugs that act on dopamine pathways, particularly older one
I don't know (Score:4, Funny)
This research seems kinda shaky.
Re: (Score:2)
The insensitivity of this joke made me shudder.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
Like stupidity?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about Ali? Maybe he should have bobbed and weaved instead of rope a dope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
I find your code of ethics fascinating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
I find your code of ethics fascinating.
I find ethics fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be nice if this were NOT vapor? (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be nice if this were NOT vapor? I'd like to see Michael J. Fox [wikipedia.org] be able to stay around as long as possible.
Here's to hoping this pans out. Cheers.
Re:Wouldn't it be nice if this were NOT vapor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it certainly would be nice.
Especially when you consider there appear to be links between Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/20/23-a [psychiatryonline.org]
There has been other research suggesting that understanding one of these diseases leads to avenues of research for the other.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't done enough research on Alzheimer's to support the link between the two, but the destruction of dopamine-producing cells in Parkinson's surely has an effect on long-term memory.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5943/1017 [sciencemag.org]
A lack of dopamine affects other cognitive functions, so I can imagine seeing similar behavioural effects as one sees in Alzheimer's, but I'm not aware of Alzheimer's characteristic loss of neurons and synapses in Parkinson's disease. So the link between them seems
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you want that little bugger to still be around, I thought he died along time ago, when that show of his with heather locklear got cancelled.
Hmm, how safe is safe enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll take the meds!!
Re:Hmm, how safe is safe enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, there are drugs that are moderately effective in Parkinson's Disease - not curative, but they do significantly improve patient functioning. Secondly, and most importantly, they found enzyme that they affects dopamine levels. They HAVE NOT (at least as far as I can tell from TFA) found that they can reverse the clinical entity known as Parkinson's disease by altering the function of that enzyme. That's first.
Then they have to find something (a drug or other treatment modality) that alters enzyme function that can get into brain (not easy) and not trash everything else in sight and / or create more problems than it solves.In this case, the bar is going to be set fairly high.
There are countless potential medical breakthroughs stuck at this stage. Very interesting, likely very important. Very speculative.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if you are talking about eliminating Parkinsons or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma then the bar should probably be lower
The problem with this approach is that the worse the disease, the more snake-oil you can find out there, promising to cure you and your wallet of all of your ills.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with this approach is that the worse the disease, the more snake-oil you can find out there, promising to cure you and your wallet of all of your ills.
For something that IS time sensitive like Parkinson's, I'd not lower the bar on claims, I'd lower the bar on the risk aspect.
In otherwords, lets say I make a claim that my drug does "A". I would like for the FDA to evaluate it for "A" and the major risks of "Will this likely hurt me more than help?"
Then once "A" has been sufficiently proven, and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're at least comparing apples, oranges, and pears here.
The current meds can help alleviate the symptoms of the disease, but do nothing to arrest it's progress. Eventually, the disease progresses until the drugs cannot help anymore.
Various transplants aim to reverse the progression of the disease significantly. If it works, it's like starting over, but you still have a progressive degenerative disease and if you live long enough, you'll need another transplant.
TFA is talking about a drug that would halt t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are about 2-3 'stages' of Parkinson's medication, depending on just how much advanced the illness is at time of diagnosis. The first line of defence is the best and has good, manageable, results with relatively few side effects. The initial medication (typically L-Dopa tablets) regimen is effective for approximately the first 8-10 years, with the other stages of treatment decreasing rapidly in effectiveness plus worsening physical and mental side effects.
Remember that treating Parkinson's is essentia
Re:Hmm, how safe is safe enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Saying Protein Kinase C is the key to neutralizing Parkinson's Diseases is like saying Money is the key to the Financial Crisis.
The clinical effects of Parkinson's Disease are the result of neuron death. You can't reverse the effects. Even if you induce neuronal growth, the brain will have to relearn the connections it needs to make, which took a lifetime to form. Forget about playing the piano again. You'll have to relearn to play (although you'll still have the conceptual knowledge).
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Be aware that this cure won't reverse degeneration that has already occured.
It will merely hault the progression of Parkinson's so that those in the future diganosed with this illness do not have to fear a slow, lingering decrease in their ability to function in society.
Sadly, this news is 20 years too late to help my father.
Re: (Score:2)
This news is too late for a lot of people. However, preventing further damage is the first step in recovery (if recovery is possible). While the brain isn't technically viewed as a resiliant organ, it can partially recover if given enough time.
If we can stop the damage causing element, I wouldn't be surprised (I wouldn't hold my breath) if the damage reversed itself over time (which could be decades)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the disease leads to paralysis then death how safe does it have to be to be effective? If the cure kills 5% of the people that take it I would think that will be less than the 10 year delay in getting a "perfect" cure out of the lab and through FDA testing.
Unfortunately, if you give that treatment to everyone, after 5% die, you'll have no one left to experiment on to find an even newer cure that kills no one. Or even worse, you'll find out that half the dosage of the same stuff, cures them just as well without killing anyone at all.
Also the hypothesis is always that its a cure, because that is better for research grants. Of course, if you give it to everyone in an uncontrolled manner, if it doesn't work, which would not be entirely surprising, then ten year
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, if you give that treatment to everyone, after 5% die, you'll have no one left to experiment on to find an even newer cure that kills no one. Or even worse, you'll find out that half the dosage of the same stuff, cures them just as well without killing anyone at all.
Believe me they do multiple dosage in the trials. This is presuming the worst case scenario. Also I wish that PD would magically disappear and that there would be never be a new case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think things ARE relaxed and graded according to how the disease warrants it. For example, a children's Rotavirus vaccine was pulled off the market in 1999 because an extra ~5 out of 1,000,000 children had an adverse reaction (ie. the vaccine was 99.9995% safe) than was expected by statistical analysis. On the other hand, cancer treatments which cause a great deal of toxicity but which extend life an extra few months are regularly approved. You may feel the scale isn't set quite right, but I think qual
Re: (Score:2)
It should improve the rest, or at least we shoudl be able to stop treatment for those that it doesn't.
G
Skepticism may be warranted, here. (Score:3, Interesting)
They say the first thing you hear about research or technology is the best thing you will ever hear about it.
I'm not so sure "neutralizing" this kinase-C will result in any miracle cures, as the protein happens to have a lot of other uses in the body, per wikipedia:
"Recurring themes are that PKC is involved in receptor desensitization, in modulating membrane structure events, in regulating transcription, in mediating immune responses, in regulating cell growth, and in learning and memory"
Re:Skepticism may be warranted, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'm more curious about why PKC is doing this: if we could figure out how/why the dopamine-producing cells are getting killed by PKC and reduce their vulnerability, that seems like it would be a less systemic way of getting the same result than trying to reduce PKC's activity. It'd likely have fewer side-effects since it would only affect the cells getting attacked, rather than all the other cells that need PKC for their normal function.
Parent
Re:Skepticism may be warranted, here. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Skepticism may be warranted, here. (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, there isn't just one Protein Kinase C. There are a number of different versions with different jobs. Hence the list of the various isozymes in the article. The one in question is Protein Kinase C delta (PKC), and is NOT covered in the wikipedia article.
PKC mediates apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in certain dopamine producing neurons. By blocking the enzyme, you can prevent the apoptosis. Reading some of Dr. Kanthasamy's papers, it's clear that he's already found some agents that do this in animal models. This is, of course, a long way from human trials (10 years if things go well, I believe is what he said in the article). But this is very promising avenue of research.
What I can't figure out is why this is recent news. Dr. Kanthasamy has clearly been following this line of research for a few years. There's a 2007 paper entitled Neuroprotective Effect of Protein Kinase C{delta} Inhibitor Rottlerin in Cell Culture and Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease [sciencemag.org], so clearly he had already connected PKC with PD and was already investigating agents to block it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Skepticism may be warranted, here. (Score:4, Informative)
There are many different forms of PKC, including PKC delta, the one that seems to be in question here according to recent publications from this lab. Specifically, a caspase enzyme is cleaving PKC delta into a smaller protein, and it's this cleaved version that appears to be causing the damage to the dopamine neurons in the nigra. Caspases mediate programmed cell death, and the compound in the paper I looked at blocks a certain caspase that was activated by the presence of certain metals.
So while PKC and caspases are found widely throughout the body, there's actually a fair degree of specificity in the current model. Of course it's still early, and there are things to worry about, such as a possible increased likelihood for cancer (caspase 3 may be involved in breast cancer). But if this particular interaction between capase 3 and PKC delta can be successfully blocked without harm to other systems, we may have a good treatment on our hands.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno about you, but I reckon most people would take an increased risk of breast cancer(or even a straight up mastectomy) over what happens to you with PD, not a fun way to die as I understand it and die you will.
Re:Skepticism may be warranted, here. (Score:4, Informative)
Presumably, the target of this particular kinase C form is involved in the apoptosis pathway for dopamine-releasing neurons, so keeping the molecular switch from being turned on could prevent the cell death from being carried out. Since the structures of isozymes are different, you could develop a drug that knocks out this variant of PKC without turning off PKC globally.
However, preventing apoptosis of neurons, while possibly leading to an effective treatment, still does not address why brain cells would feel the need to kill themselves. For instance, in at least some Parkinson's patients, neurons suffer from a buildup of improperly folded protein called alpha-synuclein (compare amyloid and tau in Alzheimer's, prions in prion diseases). (However, overall there are many possible causes of Parkinson's and related syndromes, including unknown causes.) Cell suicide is meant as a protective measure for the remaining cells so they are not in turn poisoned by the output of misfolded proteins. What happens when you turn off apoptosis, and cells which turn "sick" are no longer able to die?
Parent
So how does this relate to.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
leads me to hypothesize that the reduced dopamine is a cause of the other Parkinson's symptoms, not just a correlated effect.
yeah, I was kinda hoping for that... :)
How do they calculate the time needed (Score:2)
Really, I'm curious to know?
I mean, if you find something really promising, don't you try to accelerate the testing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Willing to risk the entire company by taking a few shortcuts? Ethically you might say it's worth it. Better for a company to risk death than a person. But that's not how things are decided. Both have to live. And that takes a lot of time.
Cure, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would think that a drug that prevents a bad thing from happening is a cure. Yes, there are side effects, and yes, there are costs, but extending and enhancing quality of life is a pretty good definition of a cure to me.
There might, and probably will be, drugs that eliminate cancers. Once such things occur, it might/will be possible to reduce or eliminate dosage. Many other diseases are a lack-of or an excess-of in the body. Short of genetic modification, what you can do in these cases OTHER than to pr
Re:Cure, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know your intentions, but you seem to be insenuating a shift in the approach medicne is taking. I'd say there's not really a change.
Big breakthroughs in early medicne were things like antibiotics. Because the diseases they treat are caused by bacteria, and because you can eliminate all of the bacteria causing a given illness, cure is a reasonable goal.
Viral or fungal infections, or cancers, are similarly things where it makes sense to hope for a cure. Any condition that's caused by somethign attacking your otherwise-functional body might potentially be cured.
But as our lives get longer, and the number of deaths attributed to bacteria, etc. decrease, more and more of the conditions that have our attention are caused by some abnormal function of the body itself. The body is a complex and dynamic place; it's a bit much to hope that acute administration of a chemical will forever alter whatever defect is causing a problem. Suppose, for example, that the cause is ultimately genetic; then every cell is propagating the root cause. If you can interfere with the operation of the disease so as to eliminate - or sometimes even just reduce - symptoms, that's a great result; but it probably does mean you'll be on a maintenance medicine.
Modern medicine is still looking for cures, but the problems we're facing are a lot harder now that the lowest-hanging fruit has been taken.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid 20-mumble years ago, I knew someone who got Hodgkin's lymphoma (or "disease" at the time). His family prepared for the inevitable death that was to come a few months later. Today, the cure rate is 90% - it's the cancer you want to get if you're going to have one. I'm personally pretty happy with the cure rates we're seeing in some previously fatal diseases.
Not A Cure (Score:2)
Title should read "dopamine producing cell killers"
The research may lead to a treatment to stop the progression. It cannot lead to a 'cure'. By the time symptoms are noticed, about 2/3 of the dopamine producing cells are dead. No matter how loud and clear you tell the remaining cells to stop dying off ('halting apoptosis'; essentialy what the research is about), the dead ones stay dead.
There is already a (partial) cure for Parky's: fetal stem cell injection. It worked 20 years ago, and it'd work today if it
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might do it for you if you had the disease.
If the side effects are more tolerable than the disease itself most people would opt to use the medicine. Waiting for perfect solutions has never really worked, especially for diseases that slowly rob you of any ability to manage your daily life.
Parent
Re:huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
It might do it for you if you had the disease.
If the side effects are more tolerable than the disease itself most people would opt to use the medicine. Waiting for perfect solutions has never really worked, especially for diseases that slowly rob you of any ability to manage your daily life.
Indeed. If and when it comes time to do trials in humans, they can probably expect to have volunteers lined up around the block. There are certain diseases where "we don't know if this is safe" is not that big a concern.
My godfather was in a study for an experimental treatment for a particular kind of leukemia. He was very close to entering the "acute" (as in acutely fucked) stage and the best matching marrow donor he'd found in years of searching would have left him with an under 10% chance of surviving the transplant if it came to that. He was sick and miserable thanks to his chemotherapy. So, what exactly did he have to lose? Not a whole hell of a lot. What was the outcome? The drug, as far as they could tell, cured him and everyone else in the study. All signs of leukemia vanished.
That's a long shot to happen in any particular case, but how many people who are facing nasty death if they don't try wouldn't be willing to take it?
On a related note, my graduate algorithms professor had a side gig of consulting for the medical industry. He related that he had worked on an algorithm for situations like this one, where as the study progresses and (assuming) the drug is showing signs of being effective you want to move people from the control group to the active group as quickly as possible while still maintaining the validity of the study. The algorithm was exponential in the size of the study, so study sizes or the ability to move people into the active group could be seriously constrained by available computing power. His optimizations (didn't change the big-O iirc) improved the performance and thus allowed larger study sizes and thus, as a result, could have literally saved lives.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Also worth keeping in mind that because this disease kills about 15,000 people a year in the US (and many tens of thousands world wide) every year of delay caused by over-regulation will kill many thousands of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to call you on your bluff, but would you happen to have facts to these stories, as to which medication and which trial your grandfather was in, I could use it for MY grandfather, and would love to hear where this trail took place, I might book him a ticket right now
Re: (Score:3, Informative)