SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Mechanistic Insight from Preclinical Models of Parkinson's Disease Could Help Redirect Clinical Trial Efforts in GDNF Therapy.

Int J Mol Sci · 2021-10-28

DOI: 10.3390/ijms222111702PMID: 34769132

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by four pathognomonic hallmarks: (1) motor and non-motor deficits; (2) neuroinflammation and oxidative stress; (3) pathological aggregates of the α-synuclein (α-syn) protein; (4) neurodegeneration of the nigrostriatal system. Recent evidence sustains that the aggregation of pathological α-syn occurs in the early stages of the disease, becoming the first trigger of neuroinflammation and subsequent neurodegeneration. Thus, a therapeutic line aims at striking back α-synucleinopathy and neuroinflammation to impede neurodegeneration. Another therapeutic line is restoring the compromised dopaminergic system using neurotrophic factors, particularly the glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). Preclinical studies with GDNF have provided encouraging results but often lack evaluation of anti-α-syn and anti-inflammatory effects. In contrast, clinical trials have yielded imprecise results and have reported the emergence of severe side effects. Here, we analyze the discrepancy between preclinical and clinical outcomes, review the mechanisms of the aggregation of pathological α-syn, including neuroinflammation, and evaluate the neurorestorative properties of GDNF, emphasizing its anti-α-syn and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical and clinical trials.

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.