SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Clearance and toxicity of recombinant methionyl human glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (r-metHu GDNF) following acute convection-enhanced delivery into the striatum.

PLoS One · 2013-03-20

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056186PMID: 23526931

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundDespite promising early results, clinical trials involving the continuous delivery of recombinant methionyl human glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (r-metHuGDNF) into the putamen for the treatment of Parkinson's disease have shown evidence of poor distribution and toxicity due to point-source accumulation. Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) has the potential to facilitate more widespread and clinically effective drug distribution.AimsWe investigated acute CED of r-metHuGDNF into the striatum of normal rats in order to assess tissue clearance, toxicity (neuron loss, gliosis, microglial activation, and decreases in synaptophysin), synaptogenesis and neurite-outgrowth. We investigated a range of clinically relevant infused concentrations (0.1, 0.2, 0.6 and 1.0 µg/µL) and time points (2 and 4 weeks) in order to rationalise a dosing regimen suitable for clinical translation.ResultsTwo weeks after single dose CED, r-metHuGDNF was below the limit of detection by ELISA but detectable by immunohistochemistry when infused at low concentrations (0.1 and 0.2 µg/µL). At these concentrations, there was no associated neuronal loss (neuronal nuclei, NeuN, immunohistochemistry) or synaptic toxicity (synaptophysin ELISA). CED at an infused concentration of 0.2 µg/µL was associated with a significant increase in synaptogenesis (pConclusionThe results of this study suggest that acute CED of low concentrations of GDNF, with dosing intervals determined by tissue clearance, has most potential for effective clinical translation by optimising distribution and minimising the risk of toxic accumulation.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.