Ten years ago, in 2008, I participated in a
meeting in New York with the management of eight of the world’s largest
pharmaceutical companies. The Michael J. Fox Foundation had asked us to discuss
investment in leucine-rich repeat kinase (LRRK2 – pronounced ‘Lark 2’)
inhibitors for Parkinson’s disease (PD), and whether such a development might
halt or even prevent it. Typically, it takes a billion dollars to take a novel
drug to market.
At that time ‘precision medicine’ for PD was a relatively new
concept, as was neuroprotection for the US Food and Drug Administration i.e. to
halt or prevent disease and by lifelong administration of a therapeutic
targeted to a genetic cause. While I was elated to be part of this development it
was sobering to hear the arguments that ensued. Nevertheless, genetic
discoveries are revolutionary, and they continue to provide novel approaches to
predict and prevent PD.
LRRK2 was identified using a classical genetic linkage
approach. In 2002 a region of chromosome 12p12 was reported to segregate
‘identical-by-descent’ with clinical parkinsonism in the Japanese Sagamihara
family1,. We found similar results for
chromosome 12 in two Caucasian kindreds, Family A (German-Canadian) and Family
D (Western Nebraska)2, and soon after
in Norwegian pedigrees3. In these
families Parkinson’s disease (PD) is inherited in a dominant fashion i.e.
approximately half of every generation eventually becomes affected. Although
fourteen percent of patients have an affected first-degree relative (a parent,
sibling or child) with PD4, it is
uncommon to find more than two affected subjects in a family. Genetic research
requires informed consent to ask questions about family history, to perform
clinical exams, take blood for DNA extraction, and potentially ask permission
for studies of brain pathology post-mortem. For the advances made we are
indebted to those who have participated.
In 2004, we described the precise LRRK2
mutations that resulted in PD, namely LRRK2 R1441C (Families D and 469), Y1699C
(Family A) and I2020T (Family 32)5. The
work was done with Dr. Zbigniew Wszolek at Mayo Clinic, and as part of an
international team. Concomitantly, a group at the US National Institutes of
Health reported LRRK2 R1396G in four Basque Spanish families and Y1654C in an
English kindred6. Although incorrectly
labelled, LRRK2 R1396G is actually R1441G, and Y1654C is Y1699C, these families
provided more evidence for pathogenicity. LRRK2 I2020T was also found to cause
disease in the Sagamihara kindred7.
Notably, six affected subjects of Family A
and D, and six members of the Japanese Sagamihara family donated their brains
to research8,9. All were found to have
mid-brain neurodegeneration with profound neuronal loss in the substantia
nigra, typical of sporadic PD. However, only about a quarter of these patients
had mid-brain Lewy body disease (‘alpha-synuclein immunopositive’ aggregates).
Many patients had neurofibrillary tangles (‘tau immunopositive’ aggregates) or
alternatively ‘ubiquitin immunopositive’ aggregates. It was amazing the brain
pathology was so different (termed ‘pleomorphic’) among individuals, despite
clinically similar presentations, and even within each family with the same
disease-causing LRRK2 mutation8.
Until
recently, a diagnostic requirement for ‘definite’ PD had required the presence
of mid-brain Lewy body disease so this observation was really contentious.
Nevertheless, as many as ~20% of autopsy-confirmed cases with “probable” PD may
not have mid-brain Lewy body pathology, (although clinically these patient may
have been quite typical)10. To this
date, and with >37 brains examined, only half of all patients with LRRK2
mutations and clinical PD develop mid-brain Lewy body pathology11.
With Dr. Jan Aasly’s help, then Head of the
Department of Neurology at St. Olav’s, Trondheim, we discovered LRRK2 G2019S in
Norwegian families3. The mutation also
segregated with PD in a dominant fashion12,
and through many generations of affected subjects dating as far back as the
15th century18. While we also reported
affected families in Poland, Ireland, Spain and the US3, LRRK2 G2019S proved to be most frequent
in ‘seemingly sporadic’ PD south and east of the Mediterranean. The frequency
was highest in Ashkenazi Jews in Israel (and New York) and Arab-Berber
populations in North Africa (Algeria and Tunisia), where it is found in 13% and
30% of their PD, respectively13,14. I
write ‘seemingly sporadic’ as in all these families and populations – whether
from Trondheim in Norway, Tel Aviv in Israel or Tunis in Tunisia – LRRK2 G2019S
originates from the same ancestral founder, in effect, these patients are all
distant cousins3,15.
Arguably, the
LRRK2 G2019S mutation has been dated to ~1,000 BC, a time when Mediterranean
sea trade was most active between Phoenician ports in North Africa (Tunisia,
Algeria and Morocco), Europe (Spain and Italy) and the Levant (Lebanon, Syria,
Israel)16. In the present day
populations of Israel and Tunisia, 1.9% of Ashkenazi and Arab-Berber subjects
have LRRK2 G2019S due to a combination of genetic selection and drift. Ancient
Norse trade, that included long-term settlements in Carthage ~1000 AD, may
explain LRRK2 G2019S families in Norway. In contrast, the absence of LRRK2
G2019S in Central Europe, in Austrian and German patients, may reflect
migration during World War II and the holocaust.
Although its origin is lost in history the
LRRK2 G2019S diaspora is arguably the greatest single genetic cause of PD. Why
most individuals appear to have “sporadic” rather than familial disease remains
unclear. From meta-analysis the lifetime probability of LRRK2 G2019S
heterozygotes becoming affected (termed penetrance) is ~30% (28% at 59, 51% at
69 and 74% at 78 years)17. However,
there are families in which LRRK2 G2019S PD is clearly inherited, as that is
how it was originally identified12,18,19.
In 2005, I started working with Dr. Faycel Hentati, the Director of the
National Institute of Neurology in Tunis, North Africa. There is a pandemic of
PD in Arab-Berbers, the predominant population in North Africa, and to visit
the Clinic and families in their homes has been a humbling experience, given
their plight. Their generosity to help describe the clinical syndrome and its
penetrance, and to help find genetic modifiers that influence when subjects
with LRRK2 G2019S will become affected, has been remarkable19–21. Many other LRRK2 genetic variants
contribute to risk, albeit more modestly. For example, LRRK2 G2385R, specific
to Asian populations from Korea to Taiwan, is found in 6-8% of patients and
doubles the risk of PD22,23. There are
also LRRK2 genetic variants that are ‘protective’ i.e. inversely associated
with PD24.
LRRK2 G2019S directly affects the ‘activation
segment’ of LRRK2’s kinase (Figure). In effect this mutation ‘always keeps the
door ajar’, allowing LRRK2 to phosphorylate other proteins (substrates), even
when it should be inactive3. This notion has been supported with each substrate
identified - first auto-phosphorylation of LRRK2 itself, and most recently in
phosphorylation of many members of the Ras GTPase superfamily25. Thus a competitive but
specific inhibitor of LRRK2 kinase activation, even with modest efficacy, might
prevent disease in those susceptible.
To develop a safe and
affordable drug, and without off-target side-effects for a lifetime of use, is
our challenge.
Several classes of LRRK2 inhibitors have now been identified,
but which will meet this criteria is unclear26. Recent studies have shown LRRK2 kinase
inhibition more often destabilizes the protein, lowering its expression, and
may result in undesirable side-effects in lung and kidney. More research
funding is needed in three areas: i) to identify and measure “PD-relevant”
outcomes of LRRK2 kinase inhibition; ii) to develop preclinical models in which
such effects can be easily and reliably assessed, and; iii) to prospectively
identify and follow the natural evolution of disease in those patients and
families with LRRK2 genetic variability, most likely to benefit from such a
therapeutic approach.
“PD-relevant” outcomes of
LRRK2 dysfunction may be contested but in neurons many agree mutant effects are
subtle, chronic and initially synaptic27. Animal models that faithfully recapitulate
the etiology and physiology of germline LRRK2 mutations in humans have been successfully
developed, with measureable differences28,29. While drug screening requires more simple,
innovative and informative assays of LRRK2 function, several avenues hold
promise and not least in human “inducible-pluripotent stem cell’ derived
dopaminergic neurons30. LRRK2 G2019S is also
appreciated to cause PD in >50,000 Arab-Berber patients, and Tunisia, among
other North African nations, definitely has the infrastructure, expertise and
desire to develop neuroprotection, anticipating such drugs might be made
affordable.
Now we know genetic causes of PD, the
associated biologic mechanisms, and the patients most likely to benefit,
“neuroprotection” to halt or prevent symptoms can be realized. LRRK2-directed
therapeutics are likely to have broad efficacy as neuroprotective agents and
beyond patients with specific mutations24. A similar approach has been taken for
patients with PD and glucocerebrosidase (GBA) mutations by Sanofi-Genzyme who
recently launched as Phase II clinical trial of their ceramide substrate
inhibitor (GZ/SAR402671)31.
Several clinical trials have also been initiated to
clear or prevent Lewy body formation by lowering alpha-synuclein expression32. While neuropathologic
examination of LRRK2 patients suggests Lewy bodies may be neither cause nor
consequence of the disease process, clearing those protein aggregates is likely
to be of benefit to many patients who develop that pathology.
1.
Funayama, M. et al. A new locus for
Parkinson’s Disease (PARK8) maps to chromosome 12p11.2-q13.1. Ann. Neurol. 51,
296–301 (2002).
2.
Zimprich, A. et al. The PARK8 locus in
autosomal dominant parkinsonism: confirmation of linkage and further
delineation of the disease-containing interval. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 11–19
(2004).
3.
Kachergus, J. et al. Identification of a
novel LRRK2 mutation linked to autosomal dominant parkinsonism: evidence of a
common founder across European populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76, 672–80
(2005).
4.
Rocca, W. A. et al. Familial aggregation of
Parkinson’s disease: The Mayo Clinic family study. Ann. Neurol. 56, 495–502
(2004).
5.
Zimprich, A. et al. Mutations in LRRK2 cause
autosomal-dominant parkinsonism with pleomorphic pathology. Neuron 44, 601–7
(2004).
6.
Paisán-ruíz, C. et al. Dardarin Mutations in
PARK8 PD Cloning of the Gene Containing Mutations that Cause PARK8-Linked
Parkinson’s Disease Dardarin Mutations in PARK8 PD. Neuron 44, 595–600 (2004).
7.
Funayama, M. et al. An LRRK2 mutation as a
cause for the Parkinsonism in the original PARK8 family. Ann. Neurol. 57,
918–921 (2005).
8.
Wszolek, Z. K. et al. Autosomal dominant
parkinsonism associated with variable synuclein and tau pathology. Neurology
62, 1619–22 (2004).
9.
Hasegawa, K. et al. Familial parkinsonism:
Study of original Sagamihara PARK8 (I2020T) kindred with variable
clinicopathologic outcomes. Park. Relat. Disord. 15, 300–306 (2009).
10. Hughes, A. J., Daniel, S. E., Kilford, L. & Lees, A.
J. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: A
clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 55,
181–184 (1992).
11. Kalia LV, Lang AE, Hazrati LN et al. Clinical
correlations with Lewy body pathology in LRRK2-related Parkinson disease. JAMA
Neurol. 72, 100-5 (2015).
12. Aasly, J. O. et al. Clinical features of LRRK2-associated
Parkinson’s disease in Central Norway. Ann. Neurol. 57, 762–765 (2005).
13. Lesage, S. et al. LRRK2 G2019S as a Cause of Parkinson’s
Disease in North African Arabs. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 422–423 (2006).
14. Ozelius, L. J. et al. LRRK2 G2019S as a Cause of
Parkinson’s Disease in Ashkenazi Jews. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 424–425 (2006).
15. Lesage, S. et al. Parkinson’s disease-related LRRK2
G2019S mutation results from independent mutational events in humans. Hum. Mol.
Genet. 19, 1998–2004 (2010).
16. Farrer, M. J., Gibson, R. & Hentati, F. The ancestry
of LRRK2 Gly2019Ser parkinsonism - Authors’ reply. The Lancet Neurology 7,
770–771 (2008).
17. Marder, K. et al. Age-specific penetrance of LRRK2 G2019S
in the Michael J. Fox Ashkenazi Jewish LRRK2 Consortium. Neurology 85, 89–95
(2015).
18. Johansen, K. K., Hasselberg, K., White, L. R., Farrer, M.
J. & Aasly, J. O. Genealogical studies in LRRK2-associated Parkinson’s
disease in central Norway. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 16, 527–530 (2010).
19. Trinh, J. et al. DNM3 and genetic modifiers of age of
onset in LRRK2 Gly2019Ser parkinsonism: a genome-wide linkage and association
study. Lancet Neurol. 15, 1248–1256 (2016).
20. Hulihan, M. M. et al. LRRK2 Gly2019Ser penetrance in
Arab–Berber patients from Tunisia: a case-control genetic study. Lancet Neurol.
7, 591–594 (2008).
21. Trinh, J. et al. A comparative study of Parkinson’s
disease and leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 p.G2019S parkinsonism. Neurobiol.
Aging 35, 1125–1131 (2014).
22. Farrer, M. J. et al. Lrrk2 G2385R is an ancestral risk
factor for Parkinson’s disease in Asia. Park. Relat. Disord. 13, 89–92 (2007).
23. Xie, C. L. et al. The association between the LRRK2
G2385R variant and the risk of Parkinson’s disease: A meta-analysis based on 23
case-control studies. Neurological Sciences 35, 1495–1504 (2014).
24. Ross, O. A. et al. Association of LRRK2 exonic variants
with susceptibility to Parkinson’s disease: a case–control study. Lancet
Neurol. 10, 898–908 (2011).
25. Steger, M. et al. Phosphoproteomics reveals that
Parkinson’s disease kinase LRRK2 regulates a subset of Rab GTPases. Elife 5,
(2016).
26. West, A. B. Achieving neuroprotection with LRRK2 kinase
inhibitors in Parkinson disease. Experimental Neurology 298, 236–245
(2017).
27. Volta, M., Milnerwood, A. J. & Farrer, M. J. Insights
from late-onset familial parkinsonism on the pathogenesis of idiopathic
Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 14, 1054–1064 (2015).
28. Yue, M. et al. Progressive dopaminergic alterations and
mitochondrial abnormalities in LRRK2 G2019S knock-in mice. Neurobiol. Dis. 78,
172–95 (2015).
29. Volta, M. et al. Initial elevations in glutamate and
dopamine neurotransmission decline with age, as does exploratory behavior, in
LRRK2 G2019S knock-in mice. Elife 6, (2017).
30. Beevers, J. E., Caffrey, T. M. & Wade-Martins, R.
Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived dopaminergic models of Parkinson’s
disease. Biochem Soc Trans 41, 1503–1508 (2013).
31. Sanofi Initiates Phase 2 Clinical Trial to Evaluate
Therapy for Genetic Form of Parkinson’s Disease | Sanofi Genzyme News.
Available at:
http://news.genzyme.com/press-release/sanofi-initiates-phase-2-clinical-trial-evaluate-therapy-genetic-form-parkinsons-disea.
(Accessed: 8th January 2018)
32. Olanow, C. W. & Kordower, J. H. Targeting α-Synuclein
as a therapy for Parkinson’s disease: The battle begins. Mov. Disord. 32,
203–207 (2017)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Matthew Farrer, PhD
presented at the 1st World Parkinson Congress in Washington DC; the 2nd
World Parkinson Congress in Glasgow, Scotland; and the 3rd World Parkinson
Congress in Montreal, Canada. He is a Professor in the Department of Medical Genetics
at the University of British Columbia, the Canada Excellence Research Chair,
and the Don Rix BC Leadership Chair in Genetic Medicine.
https://www.worldpdcongress.org/home/2018/1/18/parkinsons-disease-precision-medicine-and-lrrk2?platform=hootsuite
No comments:
Post a Comment