From the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute and Gardner Family Center for Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders (A.J.E., J.A.V., L.M., A.M.), Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, OH; Edmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease and the Morton and Gloria Shulman Movement Disorders Clinic (A.E.L., A.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto; Krembil Research Institute (A.E.L., A.F.), Toronto, Canada; Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center (D.K.S.), Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; College of Medicine (K.A.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences (F.M.), St George's University of London, UK; Division of Movement Disorders (R.S.), Department of Neurology and Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN; Department of Neurology and the Pittsburgh Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases (J.T.G., F.C.), University of Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (T.R.Y.), University of Kentucky, Lexington; Parkinson's Disease Research, Education and Clinical Center (C.M.T.), Neurology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Department of Neurology (C.M.T.), University of California-San Francisco; Department of Neurology & Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute, and Department of Human Genetics (Z.G.-O.), McGill University, Canada; Parkinson & Other Movement Disorders Center UC San Diego (I.L.), Department of Neurosciences, Altman Clinical Translational Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; VA Puget Sound Health Care System and Department of Neurology (I.F.M., CP.Z.), University of Washington, Seattle; Department of Neurology (I.F.M.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle; Center for Neurodegenerative Science (P.B.), Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, MI; Center for Neurological Restoration (H.H.F.) and Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Neurological Institute (J.B.L.), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (D.G.S.), University of Alabama at Birmingham; Consultorio y Laboratorio de Neurogenética (M.A.K.), Centro Universitario de Neurología "José María Ramos Mejía" y División Neurología, Hospital JM Ramos Mejía, Facultad de Medicina, UBA; Programa de Medicina de Precision y Genomica Clinica (M.A.K.), Instituto de Investigaciones en Medicina Traslacional, Facultad de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Austral-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Department of Neurology (M.A.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Division of Neuroscience (S.P.S.), Sanofi-Genzyme, Framingham, MA; Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (T.S.), New York, NY; and College of Sciences (G.P.), University of Texas at San Antonio.
Neurology. 2019 Feb 12;92(7):329-337. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006926.
The gold standard for a definitive diagnosis of Parkinson disease (PD) is the pathologic finding of aggregated α-synuclein into Lewy bodies and for Alzheimer disease (AD) aggregated amyloid into plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau into tangles. Implicit in this clinicopathologic-based nosology is the assumption that pathologic protein aggregation at autopsy reflects pathogenesis at disease onset. While these aggregates may in exceptional cases be on a causal pathway in humans (e.g., aggregated α-synuclein in gene multiplication or aggregated β-amyloid in mutations), their near universality at postmortem in sporadic PD and AD suggests they may alternatively represent common outcomes from upstream mechanisms or compensatory responses to cellular stress in order to delay cell death. These 3 conceptual frameworks of protein aggregation (pathogenic, epiphenomenon, protective) are difficult to resolve because of the inability to probe brain tissue in real time. Whereas animal models, in which neither PD nor AD occur in natural states, consistently support a pathogenic role of protein aggregation, indirect evidence from human studies does not. We hypothesize that (1) current biomarkers of protein aggregates may be relevant to common pathology but not to subgroup pathogenesis and (2) disease-modifying treatments targeting oligomers or fibrils might be futile or deleterious because these proteins are epiphenomena or protective in the human brain under molecular stress. Future precision medicine efforts for molecular targeting of neurodegenerative diseases may require analyses not anchored on current clinicopathologic criteria but instead on biological signals generated from large deeply phenotyped aging populations or from smaller but well-defined genetic-molecular cohorts.
帕金森病 (PD) 的明确诊断的金标准是病理发现聚集的α-突触核蛋白形成路易体,阿尔茨海默病 (AD) 的则是聚集的淀粉样蛋白形成斑块和过度磷酸化的 tau 形成缠结。这种基于临床病理的分类学假设是,尸检中的病理蛋白聚集反映了疾病发病时的发病机制。虽然这些聚集体在某些情况下可能与人类的因果途径有关(例如,基因倍增中的聚集α-突触核蛋白或 突变中的聚集β-淀粉样蛋白),但在散发性 PD 和 AD 的尸检中几乎普遍存在,这表明它们可能替代上游机制的常见结果,或者是对细胞应激的补偿反应,以延迟细胞死亡。这 3 种蛋白聚集的概念框架(致病、偶然现象、保护)很难解决,因为无法实时探测脑组织。尽管动物模型中不会自然发生 PD 或 AD,但它们一致支持蛋白聚集的致病作用,而来自人类研究的间接证据则不支持这一作用。我们假设:(1) 当前的蛋白聚集体生物标志物可能与常见病理有关,但与亚组发病机制无关;(2) 针对寡聚体或原纤维的疾病修饰治疗可能无效或有害,因为在分子应激下,这些蛋白是偶然现象或具有保护作用。未来针对神经退行性疾病的分子靶向精准医学努力可能需要进行分析,而不是基于当前的临床病理标准,而是基于来自大型深度表型老龄化人群或较小但定义明确的遗传-分子队列的生物信号。