SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

PD-1 blockade-induced CD4 + T cell dysregulation triggers dopaminergic neurodegeneration in Parkinson’s disease

· 2026-03-19

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9090665/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Abstract With the widespread use of PD-1 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer patients, emerging clinical evidence has linked them to the onset of parkinsonism, raising critical questions about the role of PD-1 in Parkinson’s disease (PD) pathogenesis—a connection previously unexplored. Here, we found that PD-1 blockade aggravated, while its activation mitigated, dopaminergic neuronal damage and motor deficits in PD mouse models. Immunofluorescence and flow cytometry analyses revealed that PD-1 blockade promoted blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeabilization and drove neuroinflammation by enhancing cerebral infiltration of CD4 + T cell and a Th1-biased differentiation. Notably, these effects were reversed by PD-1 activation both in vivo and in vitro. We further identify the AKT/GSK3β signaling pathway in CD4 + T cells as the central mediator of this immunomodulatory effect. Clinically relevance demonstrated by dysregulated PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in peripheral CD4 + T cells from PD patients, with notable variation across clinical subtypes. Together, these findings demonstrated that PD-1 blockade-induced CD4 + T cell dysregulation exacerbates neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration in PD, providing a novel perspective on immune pathogenesis in PD and presenting a significant, mechanistic advance with translational implications.

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.