It's been almost two years, why isn't this peptide in human trials yet?
 

If someone is reading this from MJF, can you tell us what is going on with this?

Thanks.

Researchers Use Peptide to Halt Progression of Parkinson's Disease
November 23, 2007 by Regina Sass

In a joint research project from the Rush University Medical Center, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and Yale University, New Haven, scientists have been able to use a peptide to successfully reverse the biochemical, cellular and anatomical changes associated with Parkinson's disease in mice and thereby have been able to prevent the disease from progressing any further.

The study has revealed that one particular protein, NF-kB, is present in increased level in the midbrain region in Parkinson's disease and that mice with Parkinson's disease pathology. They used a novel peptide, which is a small protein, to block the protein in the mice who had symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

After they injected the peptide into the abdomens of the mice, it made its way to the brain and blocked not only the protein NF-kB, but also other toxic molecules. It then went on to protect neurons, normalize neurotransmitter levels, and improve motor functions.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ogression.html

It would be interesting to compile a list of all the "miracles" that have been announced and then faded away. Sort of a "Broken Promises" file.

BTW, the NF-Kb that was inhibited by the mystery peptide is also inhibited by plant polyphenols (green tea, in particular).

MJFF role in advancing this hypotheses
 

MJFF funded the original study and have continued to support the work...it is currently funded in our Target Validation program to further evaluate relevance and feasibility for PD patients. You can check out more on our web site. http://michaeljfox.org/research_MJFF...s_3.cfm?ID=423

The peptide is currently being tested in non-human primates. Results from this study will help determine the clinical potential of this hypothesis.

Debi

This is a good example of how long it takes for a research observation in mice to reach humans even when the conditions are optimal., i.e., good ideas and hypotheses that worked well, people to do the work, funding for the project. Debi's post a while back nicely summarized the flow of research to product, it is very informative. Biology research is complicated, expensive and time consuming. There are very few or mostly not too many ways to speed up the process if you want something that works, has no/few side effects and long lasting.
Rick, most failed projects are due to lack of money rather than neglect from the researchers. OK< here I go defending researchers!!
Girija

Hey girija,

You are thoughtfully describing the process because you are a researcher, and no apology is needed. I always learn something from honest posts from anybody.

:)
paula

Thanks Debi
 

Your quick response is much appreciated.

One other quick question. Amongst other recently announced grants, you guys just awarded funds to study a neuroprotective strategy that is "a novel approach to characterize the distribution of a potentially therapeutic dominant-negative inhibitor of tumor necrosis factor in pre-clinical models of PD, and predict the scalability for an effective delivery of therapy in the human brain"

The researcher is Lisa Lynn Shafer, PhD, of Medtronic Neuromodulation.

Is there anything futher you can share with us at this time regarding this project? It sounds (to me) like this might be a bullsyeye. (I'm of the "tnf a is the culprit" camp) :)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The peptide is currently being tested in non-human primates. Results from this study will help determine the clinical potential of this hypothesis.

Debi[/QUOTE]

A good time to ask....
 

How can this time element be shortened, perhaps drastically? For now, let's say that "it cannot" is not allowed as an answer. One obvious way is to compromise on safety. Another is to increase funding. Would a distributed approach do anything? Lots and lots on mini-studies? Or is that a step in the opposite direction?

OK, here is one that might really work. Design studies in such a way that if I, for example, like the sound of it, I can sign up as an individual to test the miracle drug of the day in collaboration with my MD. The central research team prepares a packet outlining the elixir, procedure, data to be collected, etc. As the info comes in my GP or neuro or whatever uploads to the team website. Results are in real time and procedures can be modified on the fly. Costs are minimized.

From the selfish point we occupy, it seems that a sense of urgency needs to rule and the scientific method may have to be bent a little. We need to color outside the lines. And face it, patients are experimenting away all over the place. But it is uncoordinated and largely wasted and more than a little dangerous. There has to be a better way than what has been the norm since Newton et al. We've got the Net for gosh sakes. Are we using it to the max? Not even close.